Katherine

I prefer gin to vodka, except that vodka is more versatile. Scotch anyday, bourbon tastes like poison to me.

We've always eaten "meals" at the kitchen table, as the would-be dining room is not set up to be eaten in. When one person eats alone, anything goes, but two eating at the same time is the definition of a meal around these parts. And the TV is at the other end of the house. Since we don't have cable, it's only good for viewing tapes, so we might have the radio on, especially during breakfast, but rarely otherwise.

Yes, but according to this website (I haven't read everything, but...) they have already awarded a Nobel prize for the prion theory. That's pretty good evidence that it's beyond phlogiston. Mostly this is an illustration of the difference between the scientific and common meanings of the word "theory". The common meaning is that you, I, or the guy who lives under the overpass may have an original idea about how something comes about, and that all ideas may be considered to be of more or less of equal validity. What scientists refer to as a "theory" is supported by so much evidence that the term laymen would use is "fact". Saying that prions do not cause brain disease is "just a theory" is very much like saying that HIV is not caused by the AIDS virus.

If any of us have a better plan, we should put it forward. Testing or at least inspecting every animal prior to slaughtering would have been a better plan. Oh, did you mean cheaper? Testing each downer prior to processing, maybe? A specialized plant (with a trained lab tech) could do this. Send all the downers there. I see now that they're also trying to track down the by-products, like candles, soaps, and cosmetics made from the tallow of the animal. The public had no idea that they were consuming animals that were in the process of dying of unknown diseases. The rules are going to change. Regardless of how much smaller the risk of consumption of muscle meat is, in Europe they do not allow BSE positive animals to be consumed. The "safety factor" is supposed to be covering for the slight possibility that a young animal that shows no sign of the disease (even on post-mortem testing) may still be infected, yet its muscle meat is probably safe to eat. Given these considerations, there would be no beef animal whose brain is safe enough to eat, nor any part of a known infected animal.

I'd modify that slightly to say that the testing and sampling methods were designed with a more complex goal in mind: to ensure that there is no BSE epidemic in US herds, while at the same time not being so comprehensive as to reveal the occasional but not statistically significant isolated case. Time will tell if this was the best move. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a plan of action. The USDA reacted too swiftly, too decisively, and in too organized a fashion for it to be improvised. I guess that there was a plan of action. My point was that whatever plan of action they had apparently did not take into account the fact that an animal could be long into the food chain by the time the test results were received, even though the lead time on the tests should have suggested that would happen. So I guess their plan was to try to figure out what happened to the carcass after it was mixed, packed, and shipped to and from distributors, and recall whatever was not yet consumed, while telling the public that there is no particular risk involved. Triage and disinformation, mostly. I wouldn't call that a good plan.

I've always felt that "common sense" is a misnomer. If it were truly "common", then it wouldn't be so uncommon. When I was a kid, they were railing about permissive parents raising their kids without standards, and those kids are now grandparents. So it's not a new thing.

The only "turnips" we get her are rutabagas. Pureed with cream, yum.

It's all well and good to say you have a general policy that is intended to cover everything that might possibly be offensive, but unless you have itemized unacceptable behaviors, people with no common sense will not be able to figure out what they aren't supposed to be doing. If you have mentioned previously that children should not be on the floor ("We remind parents of who bring their young children of our policy about children in the dining room...We request that children remain in their seats at all times..."), the parents (like the ones in the original example) will have the option of choosing to comply, or opting to eat elsewhere, before their dinner begins and it is too late to change their minds. They clearly won't be able to get out the toybox and set the children on the floor for the duration. Everyone knows what a restaurant's policy on cellphones would probably be. The only way to have a consistent policy on children in dining rooms is to have it in writing, available in advance. Otherwise, they are going to think you made this up on the spot, and you did, so they would probably be right. Mark's problem is that they had no specific rules or guidelines when they suddenly realized they needed them, and the parents were clearly people who needed guidance.

The purpose of the current testing (and statistical sampling) program utilized in the US is to verify that there is no BSE in US herds. Clearly there was no plan of action to be followed were infected animals to be found. There are many tests in development, but the development task has been much more difficult than manufacturers would have hoped. The gold standard is still the test that was performed on that downer, where a sample of brain tissue is examined visually under a microscope. Such a test can be done rather quickly after slaughter, so that the carcass can be utilized, if it passes, but since nobody thought that the result might be positive, the sample was sent off to a faraway lab for testing at a future date. While it is true that whole muscle meat is probably safe, it is also true that this cow was not destined to be turned into roasts. It was ground into hamburger, which was mixed in the processing plant with the meat of many other animals. Tests have shown that many samples of hamburger contain brain or other nerve tissue. There is no way of verifying whether this animal was safely contained, or it managed to contaminate the whole lot. I'll be grinding my own hamburger, thank you.

Why can't you ask when they make the reservations something like how many adult will be in their party. If they reply that they have children/toddlers/babies you can respond that you prefer not to seat children under a certain age or that you only seat tables with children for lunch/before 6:00, etc. Wouldn't there be some way to do this when the reservation is being made. Or, when you find out they will be bringing (or have brought) children of a certain age, a gentle reminder that the restaurant policy is that children must remain in their seats, and if they become noisy or otherwise disruptive, should be removed until they calm down.

perhaps you're overly sensitive to this type of thing then? we agree that it's certainly not the majority, and i can't imagine the percentage of people who are doing this as a "power" play is significant at all. probably about the same percentage as the people who drive SUVs because they have a small penis. it's an interesting theory, and yeah, maybe a few people with small penises have bought SUVs, but probably not as many as people want to think. I think the SUV/penis analogy is not a good one. (Although, I have noticed that as SUVs gain greater market penetration, the drivers seem to becoming less aggressive and more passive-aggressive.) A better analogy is that of the SUV in the left (or center) lane driving at 50 mph, with the driver who gets aggravated that other cars pass on the right. Or the "friend" or associate who is always late and always makes you wait, because their own time is too valuable to be spent waiting. Or the person who savages a cashier because of the store's policies. Or someone who cuts you off to take a parking space, when there's a more convenient one they could have gotten, but that you can't get to. I think that, according to their mental scheme, in doing all these things they get "points". This is one reason why what seems to you to be not really so much fun (taking your own ill-behaved children out to a nice restaurant) might be plenty of fun for someone else.

that seems like a very harsh generalization. and one that is clearly inaccurate a lot of the time. but i agree that they have different priorities than some others. but don't we all. People like this are surely not the majority, just the most irritating ones. They set a bad example for those that are merely easily led. Having been married to a person who regularly pulled passive-aggressive stunts designed to inconvenience people, preventing them from objecting without looking bad, I have a little experience with the type. Things like this happen.

Nope. Perhaps we can change this.

Consider this possibility: It isn't even that these people don't *care*. In fact, they do care, and a lot. They just have different priorities from yours. They are exercising "power" in their otherwise ineffectual lives by inconveniencing everyone around them who is not in a position to object. They get a thrill from the knowledge that their server will be on his/her hands and knees, cleaning up garbage off the floor after they leave. Or that their child was able to intrude on the privacy of other diners, and compromise their enjoyment. Their children are merely acting as willing surrogates for the parents. And if anyone does object, the parents feign shock that anyone would want to stifle such a sweet, fun-loving child.

I've often thought that in a multi-room restaurant that expects children, one room should be set aside for families with children, and other loud or distracting parties. When my child was small, I wished at times that there was such a room I could request being seated in.

People should not be offended by the fact that breastfeeding is occurring, but at the same time, breasts need not be displayed for breastfeeding to occur.

Cinnamon ice cream on gingerbread, with a healthy layer of caramel/butterscotch sauce, made into Baked Alaska. Come, Festivus!

Clearly, it is not the case that parents are the best judges of their own children's behavior, otherwise we would not see children running around a dining room, throwing food (and leaving the mess behind for someone else to clean up), or screaming. Or perhaps they judge their own children's behavior well, but fail completely on the question of how that behavior should fit into a restaurant situation. The important thing is that you need to be flexible. You need a backup plan if the child is unexpectedly cranky, and can't be expected to sit for an hour. You probably won't ever be able to plan a meal much more than an hour's duration between the time when your child is 6 months old and becomes completely adult-like in behavior, except when you can arrange for child care. If you are willing to be flexible with their bedtimes and naps, you can often arrange wakeup periods to occur coincidentally with the time you wish to be at the restaurant. By keeping a child up late, and delaying a nap, you can often arrange to have them well-rested and happy when you need them to be. If you do not have a dining partner who is willing to share the responsibilities of taking the child outside, there is no way you can count on being able to remain at a restaurant when your child's behavior is intolerable.

I've followed the BSE crises from the beginning, in both Europe and Japan, and I assure you that the processes that were installed in those places were in response to media revelations about head-in-the-sand regulations.

Spread it on hot toast. Yum.

Try this.

Creme anglaise to serve with the angel food. Creme Patissiere to put in it.

Unfortunately, if you look at the history, it's not all that transparent or comforting. Congress refused to pass a law requiring testing of all animals headed for slaughter, as has been done in Europe for years. This animal, even though it was so ill it was unable to stand (the clear symptom of terminal mad cow disease) was tagged for testing only, the sample was taken, and the rest of the carcass went into processing for human consumption. There was no provision for removing suspect animals from processing, and most infected animals are slaughtered long before they develop symptoms. Thanks to the desire of the government and the cattle industry to collect no data, we can only assume that many more infected animals are probably part of our food supply.

Hollandaise!

I tried smoking meat with green coffee beans once, as a test before making my (then-planned) smoker. Coffee beans give off a huge amount of smoke when they roast. It came out *ok*, considering that it was a test run. I'm sure you could do something really tasty, if you play with it a few times. I still haven't put in the smoker, so I haven't tried it again.