therese

Okay, so that is a little winking face there, right? Because that's the whole point of that sort of fabric---as long as the trousers (or jeans, as my husband ends up dressing this sort of jacket down as well as up when we travel) pick up one of the colors in the coat you're good to go. Plain navy will only work with gray flannel and khaki/tan chinos (a combination that my husband might choose to wear if he were also choosing to dine in my absence) and shows dust and drips instantly.

Agree that a blazer/jacket much more flexible than a suit, but I'd go with a tweed or houndstooth check rather than a plain navy blazer: more forgiving of those inevitable scuffs and drips along the way, and easier to dress up or down.

Thanks for posting re your recent experience at Seeger's. As a local who eats there once or twice a year (but haven't been since the renovation) I'll say that your experience is pretty much exactly what I'd have described if you'd asked me to do so in advance (right down to Molly being the highlight of your evening service-wise).

I've actually got two extra fridges in the basement, one of which is only for beverages. The other was the result of kitchen renovation a few years ago. Very handy for large volume leftovers, but I do need to be careful to check it periodically for forgotten food. A separate chest freezer as well.

The size of the pours will be titrated according to the number of courses. You are not required to drink the entire serving, by the way---if asked explain that it wasn't that the didn't like it, but that you don't want to drink too much too quickly. If you find that you're reaching your limit and don't want to waste you can ask that subsquent pours be even smaller. On the other hand, particularly good places will often top up your pour if you've finished it before you're halfway through that course. You can obviously turn down that offer. As pointed out up thread, do make sure do drink plenty of water: it will keep you from getting hammered, and will minimize your hangover (if any) the next AM.

Here's an on line resource I came across that looks pretty reliable. Go to the searchable data base under "Population, Health, and Human Well-being" and scroll down to "Public Health: Per Capital Alcohol Consumption." Extremely groovy capacity to search all sorts of different parameters---you'll eventually be asked to register to use the site (after a couple of searches) but it's free. You can also re-access it via google and it will let you search again without getting the prompt to register. The source of the information is still key, of course, in large part so that you don't end up comparing apples and oranges, but in this instance it's the WHO, about as good as it gets for these sorts of data. In 2000 the consumption for France is listed as 13.3, for the U.S. 9.1. Drinking patterns vary not only by country, of course, but by region within that country and socioeconomic group. Drinking patterns (how much, when, what sort) in the U.S. differ markedly if you compare coastal and inland regions, for instance.

Interesting article. I shop the perimeter at my local Publix, as the middle of the store is pretty much dead space to me: most of it's prepared food and snacks, and I don't buy very much of it. I do have a definite preference for right handed stores (something I'd noticed long before this study) and also like stores that don't move things around very much. I want to find tea in exactly the same place today as it was last week. Most of my shopping's done at a local market called Dekalb Farmers Market. It takes a different approach, with the store arranged in zones. Produce the single largest zone, by far. Prepared food and snacks occupy a much smaller portion of the total footprint than in conventional supermarket.

You mean if I order a bottle of wine (well, a demi) and can't finish it they'll only charge me for the portion I've consumed? Cool. Edit to add: I never drive in France. So I'm guessing this will remain entirely a theoretical possibility for me.

Heh heh---I've never considered the issue, as it happens so rarely, particularly with my husband. But it did happen last year when dining with a female (French) friend in Montpellier. There was enough that it wouldn't have been possible to serve between the two of us in any case. The restaurant owner asked if she'd like to take it home, and she said fine. It was nicely packaged up with a new reusable stopper in a specially made bag (the sort that we use as gift wrapping for wine here in the U.S.).

I'll point out another drawback to the "romantic dinner" theory---unless they've rented an apartment they're likely sleeping in the same room as the children. So not, um, romantic. As for strangers reaching out and fondling children, that's exactly what did happen to my children in Italy a couple of years ago. Venice, so it was already close quarters, and little old ladies would ruffle their hair and pinch their cheeks while we shuffled along, remarking on how well-behaved they were and what a wonderful mother I must be. The children were only freaked out the first few times, and of course were very polite about it.

I'm in the "yes" camp. If your kids can handle it and you want to share this experience with them you should do so. They will, in fact, remember it as a very special occasion. Romantic dinners for two are all well and good, but you can have them at home, when the kids are snug in their own beds with their usual babysitter. Knowing that my children had wanted to come along for this meal, but are instead eating room service with a babysitter they've never met before would actually take a lot of the fun out of the evening for me. And I agree with chefzadi that French diners or staff are unlikely to object to the children, particularly well-behaved children.

Serve food buffet style with several different options: everybody can have what they'd like and it will be easier to handle for that large a party anyway (125 is not really all that small).

Sounds correct, at least to my unfortunately jaded ear.

Wealth. I'm not talking about individual wealth, as of course the wealthy among us actually tend to be the thinnest and healthiest, but wealth as a society. Food is easier to get (no labor whatsoever involved) and it's cheaper. Obesity is a consequence of improved standard of living.

I agree, you have to look at both sides of the caloric intake/expenditure equation. I just don't see what's so very important about making sure that children are drinking whole milk. Humans, Neolithic or modern, drink whole milk (breast milk) as infants and young children, and plenty of children continue to nurse through toddlerhood. But those children are not getting most of their calories from milk because they're also eating solids. And they're not even get most of their hydration from milk as they're also consuming other beverages, like water.

Um, just how significant a portion of ones life are we talking about here?

I've been offered money for food that I'd brought with me on long haul flights. I just shared, no money changed hands.

Wow, I'll say. For one thing you're likely really really poor. And probably sort of jittery.

Exactly. Thanks for doing the calculation, Patrick. Another way of thinking about it would be to calculate how much more physical activity you'd have to do to use up those calories and thereby keep from gaining weight.

Low fat for a food stuff, but high fat for a beverage. And it's delicious. I agree, not suitable as a beverage. Not a bad after school snack, though. I'm basically on the same page as you when it comes to the whole processed food aspect of things, and that's one of the things about the whole milk/skim milk argument that's always perplexed me: whole milk is processed. I grew up (my summers, anyway) on a small dairy farm and we literally never drank whole milk. Cream (which readily separates from the milk unless it's been processed by homogenization) was skimmed off and either used fresh or clabbered and churned into butter. Drinking whole milk and then also using butter in our diets would have meant that we were effectively "double dipping" when it came to fat.

But, any milk is better than soda. ← Water is another great choice for a child (or adult) who is already getting adequate nutrition from the solid portion of the diet.

More milk is not the same as whole milk.

I think the serving size here may not be the same---looks like you've got one cup of 2% milk and two cups of whole milk. Calcium partitions into the water portion of milk, not the fat portion. [edit to fix typo]

It's not the fat per se, it's the fact that a cup of whole milk is nearly double the calories of a cup of skim milk. That's a lot of calories, particularly given that you're drinking them. Whole milk is a very efficient way to get calories into people that need them, like infants. Very few of the rest of us need to get so many calories so easily.

But calcium is water soluble, so skim and 2% milk contain more calcium than an equivalent volume of whole milk.