Miguelito

Made the drive with wife, in-laws and 10-month old son Sunday. Bottom line -- good food, not so good customer relations. I had the pan-fried trout, which comes with apple-smoked bacon, cream cheese scrambled eggs, and apple coffee cake. The bacon, two thick strips right on top of the fish, kind of overwhelms the trout -- not such a problem for me, as I love bacon (and you could always take off anyway, I suppose). Cream cheese in scrambled eggs? Who'da thunk it? But the textures and flavors melded nicely. Coffee cake was fresh and obviously made in house. Just a simple yellow cake with a fair amount of cinnamon swirled in among the large chunks of apple, and with a crumbly brown sugar topping. Fortunately, the cake itself was not too sweet, so the flavors balanced well. My wife had the biscuits and gravy. Plenty of chipped beef in the creamy gravy made this dish a treat. Biscuits were fresh, flaky and buttery-rich, but could have been larger -- they're only about 1-1/2 inches across, and as only two of them come on the plate, the copious gravy easily outlasts the biscuits. MIL had the portobello mushroom, spinach and goat cheese frittata; FIL had the ham, gruyere and apple frittata. I did not taste these, although MIL and FIL appeared to enjoy them. Wife and I had Mimosas, FIL had a Bloody Mary. All were unusually strong -- not such a good thing for brunch, IMO, but better than too weak. Unfortunately, a service issue marred what would otherwise have been a very enjoyable meal. We arrived a few minutes early for a 10:30 res, were seated by 10:25 and placed our orders by 10:40. We finally got our food at 11:35. Our waitress was attentive and nice, and even commented unsolicitedly around 11:15 that the delay seemed unusual, and went to check on things for us. My guess is that the order had been lost/overlooked until then. No biggie; things happen. It's what happened as the meal ended that is stuck in my craw. The manager came down as we were finishing to ask if everything was alright. I told him that we enjoyed the food, but that we were a bit disappointed by the 45-minute-plus wait in getting it, and noted that the table next to us had been served within no more than 15 minutes of placing their order. He was not apologetic, and said that the wait hadn't been unusually long, and that it resulted from the busy time at which we had arrived, not from any problem. Three things about that just don't sit right with me. First, a 45-minute-plus wait for brunch is just not acceptable, even in a full house, and this house was not full when we arrived. If that kind of delay is routine at this establishment then something is not right in their operations. Second, if it is routine, why did our waitress, on her own initiative, comment that it seemed unusual? Third, why the brush-off when we raised the issue? It's not like we were asking for anything to be comped, just letting the guy know that the delay put a cloud on the experience. He acted as if he didn't want to hear about it. Fortunately, hitting a couple of wineries on the way back (Gray Ghost and Unicorn) and getting to spend the day with the extended family set the mood back to mellow and happy.

My wife and I dine at 1789 for our anniversary every year (we had a memorable and enjoyable rehearsal dinner in the Middleburg room). It may not be the hippest place in town, but the atmosphere really lends itself to a special occasion. For our anniversaries, the restaurant has always recognized the event in a thoughtful but low-key way, e.g., a complimentary glass of champagne before dinner. While I would not call the menu cutting-edge, we have never had a bad meal; among our favorites has been the pecan- (or was it pine nut?) encrusted chicken. The only even slightly negative experience in all of our visits: One time they ran out of our then-favorite dessert -- chess pie -- just as we ordered it, so we had to watch the guy at the next table eat the last piece! Needless to say, that did not diminish our very high opinion of the place.

Nope. Me, too. I have also heard the same scent described as "phenolic" and ascribed to the same source.

Considering making a family outing of it this w/e but want to be sure the destination is as enjoyable as the scenery en route. If so, do they take (and do you need) reservations? Thanks.

I ended up with a case of '96 Buehler Estate cab that is slightly fizzy (at least the first three bottles, which I recently opened, are). I viewed that as a very bad thing! Got it as a gift year or so ago, so I can't very well return it to the retailer. Does anyone think Buehler would/should replace it if I let them know of the problem? I suppose an underlying question is whether fizziness is indicative of a problem that must have arisen prior to bottling, i.e., that this is a defect attributable to something that must have happened at the winery, not in any subsequent handling. (I believe that to be the case, but I do not claim to be the World's Leading Expert.) Thanks.

Which one is Bartles and which one is James?

Love the toffee-nutty flavors that come through in the 20s and older. Have tried the Taylor 40-yr once and loved it -- especially since I sampled it in the posh IVP tasting room in Lisbon while on vacation!

Suddenly I feel great nostalgia. Back in the '80s, when I was in my late teens/early 20s quaffing Bud and Old Milwaukee back in Indiana, I thought Foster's oilcans epitomized exotic, high-quality foreign beer. Ah, youth!!!

One example of a regression study on cert issues is George & Solimine's article in 9 S. Ct. Econ. Rev. (2001). All of the factors you identify increase the chances of cert being granted, without a doubt. Other factors, however, cut against cert being granted in these cases. First, the Supremes are far more likely to grant cert on an en banc decision at the Court of Appeals, but both Swedenburg (the NY case) and Heald (the MI case) are panel decisions (petition for reh'g en banc denied in Heald, unclear whether denied or not sought in Swedenburg based on a quick check). Second, the Supremes like to let things percolate before jumping in, but litigation on the direct shipping issue is a relatively new phenomenon. I do not dispute that these cases are more likely than the average case to be granted cert. But the average case has only about a four percent chance. Even with the plus factors you identify, I still think it more likely than not that cert will be denied.

I'm confident that even with the split and the clashing constitutional arguments, the odds are greatly against the Court taking either or both of these cases. There is empirical research on the point, but who really wants to hear about a regression study?!? If the Court did take the cases and did outlaw restrictions on direct shipping, I wonder who would benefit more -- producers or consumers? My guess is that prices would not change much, that consumers would benefit from enhanced selection, and that producers would internalize some of the profits that are presently going to the various middlemen.

I certainly hope the Court decides to hear one or both of these cases, and would heartily toast a victory by the plaintiffs. But one must remember that the Supreme Court accepts only a tiny percentage of the cases it is petitioned to hear. Based strictly on the numbers, it is not likely that the Court will decide either of these cases. That's not to deny that the Constitutional question is interesting; it is, and it might catch the Court's fancy. (Or, more importantly, the fancy of the Justice's law clerks, who are really the prime movers in deciding what cases the Court will hear.) Playing Devil's advocate, one might argue that if the 21st amendment and the Commerce Clause are in conflict, the Amendment ought to control, as it was enacted later. That might not be so good, as the Amendment seems to grant broad discretion to the States in matters relating to the sale of alcohol. The operative language is that "The transportation or importation into any State ... for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, inviolation of the laws [of the State], is hereby prohibited." The IFJ has top-flight lawyers working on these cases, and I'm sure they have a creative and persuasive legal argument for why the Commerce Clause controls; I'd love to hear it and I hope it prevails.

It may be worth considering whether the hormone-free salmon, the fair-trade garlic and the farmhouse mayo might require more resources to produce than their less "authentic" (and generally less expensive) substitutes. If so, and if the substitute goods create the same sensory satisfaction (a big, big if), aren't we better off consuming the less "authentic" substitute instead of the more expensive (and resource-hungry) "genuine" article? One might argue that we will have had the same sensory experience, but will be left with some additional resources to use as we wish (e.g., feeding the hungry). That might be something to feel good about.

You may be onto something -- I have never seen Gillian Clark and Herbert von Karajan in the same room.

Speaking of pizza, hard to go wrong at Two Amy's (Cleveland Park) or Ella's (Metro Center).

What I don't get about Seitsema's chats is why he (or his producer) selects so many lame questions/rants to post. He often says he gets waaaay too many questions to respond to more than a small fraction. Can they all be so lame that he has no choice but to respond for the umpteenth time to a FAQ like where to get a good burger? Why post rather than ignore idiotic rants about the advice he just gave? The ranters cannot be placated, so why waste precious chat time trying? I'm not so sure he enjoys it; to my eye his responses have taken a turn toward the caustic/exasperated and away from the witty -- not so entertaining (or flattering) to read, IMO. Why not just pick the most interesting questions, answer them thoughtfully, and forget the rest?

must. keep. joke. to. self. Between this and the Royal Palace sub-thread in the "New Spots" thread, this forum is getting a whole lot more interesting.

One thing I like about Adega is that they have Bobby Flay stuff for sale. BF's habanero peanuts are awesome.

Interesting list. Good mix of styles and price points. A few things jumped out. Angelo & Maxie's is closed (no big loss) -- McCormick & Schmick's is moving into that space but I do not think they have opened yet. La Casona is not that good. I went there hoping for a pupusa but the closest thing they had on the menu was some kind of a doughy empanada. Major letdown. I think "Bistro d'Or" is supposed to be Bistro d'Oc (near Ford's Theater), which I like.

Hard to go wrong with Rocklands -- great ribs and a good selection of sides. Get the corn pudding. I'd probably give the nod to Capital Q, though. Might be proximity -- I work near Metro Center so I get Cap Q a lot more often than Rocklands -- but I think it's just that I like their brisket better than anything I get at Rocklands. Either one of them smokes Red Hot & Blue -- the Wilson Blvd location is at best mediocre. Sadly, even Rocklands and Cap Q, in my opinion, pale in comparison to most of the out-of-the-way BBQ shacks down in the Carolinas. Always an adventure seeking out and trying a new one when I'm down there, which is not often enough.

Remember the song (maybe from Sesame Street) "One of These Things Is Not Like the Others"? For my beef-buying dollar, you can do waaaaaaaaaay better than Blackie's. Depending on the atmosphere you want, Capital Grill, Caucus Room, Morton's, or Les Halles will all provide what is in my view a better meal. People seem to be flocking to Ray's The Steaks in VA (as a result of mucho props from Tom Sietsema), but I haven't been so I can't say.

Amernick doughnuts are available only on weekends, and only after 11:30 a.m. (I go on Saturdays so I can't say for sure that the place is open or that the 'nuts are available on Sundays.) Don't count on them being available right at 11:30, though -- most of the time it's more like noon. It is a damn good deep-fried pastry product, though, so even if you have to wait it's well worth it.

I've eaten at CK six or eight times in the past few months. Love the food (homestyle with a southern influence seems an apt decription) and the slightly campy decor (lots of vintage food-related curios on display). Brunch is a treat -- fresh doughnuts as good as Amernick's, although completely different in style, plus cheese grits to die for. It's been a while since my last visit, so I can't confirm the availability of the burger on Sunday nights. I'm not certain I would order it anyway, though -- the flatiron steak, roast chicken or pork chop would probably get my vote (menu changes frequently, so these may or may not be available now). Although many of the negative reviews in the Post Online strike me as over the top, I have found the service to be weak on average and more than once quite poor -- loooong waits, unresponsive servers, occasionally tepid food. One might expect more attention to how the staff is performing from a Chef who likens herself to Herbert von Karajan and Zubin Mehta (her open letter to Sietsema: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveo...sema043003.htm). For me, the food and the atmosphere (plus the fact that CK makes an awesome addition to a neighborhood sorely in need of more dining-out options) will keep me going back, but I can sympathize with those who find the weak service too much to bear.