Carrot Top

More on our subject

Maybe if the directions had been voice-over'd by a celebrity chef on a television that had a TiVo attached to it so that the hands-on tearing apart of the package and dropping in boiling water could be seen a la minute set right in front of the stove it would have worked.

Interesting point, rickster. I wonder if all the food companies are facing this problem or if it was one specific to that company due to "how the directions are written". If language is not made very clear, people do not take the time to read it. Lots of people have "no time".

Angela Hartnett at the expense of his wife, perhaps. But then maybe his wife loves this game too. One day "a schoolteacher" the next "someone who won't be allowed in MY expensive kitchen" and the next "a food editor of one of the top magazines". Either she is getting a profession from his leavings and name and slyly moving herself into a place where she *will* demand respect from ones of his ilk - *or* she is someone with her own talents that must not mind her husband speaking of her in the ways he does because well *more money and fame for US, dearie!*. But then again, maybe she does not like this game. I would not like to hear any husband of mine speak of me that way. But then again, ultimately she has the right to divorce him and walk away with a bundle. "All part of the game." What a truly distasteful game. "Play the Game". I've actually heard that said by people who do these sorts of things for a living. (Edited to add: in corporate life - not in married life though sometimes it seems as rampant there too.) To me it's an ugly phrase. It removes "the players" from the rest of humanity, if the "players" have anything to say about it. It makes them bigger and better and richer by far - the Grand Winners who eat the little people by making the little people want to be like them in ways that will never, in any actuality, have any "real" impact on their lives. They will pay for cookbooks and try to fit the image and cook the foods (which is all well and fine if the offerings of such things are done in a manner where "the player" considers themselves an equal human being on an equal footing). Some players do not consider themselves equal to their audiences. Could be that they *are* not - perhaps they *are* better at this and that, and certainly they are better at this thing called charisma. But to then use that (whether it is done "playfully" or supposedly with the idea that they can *change* society with their doings) to denigrate a specific group (in this case "women") is not cute. "At home Mom's" who live in the wealthier areas of the country *may* have all sorts of varieties of help to do their household tasks. But most women do not. There are still huge numbers of women who work at non-professional jobs out there. As there are men who do the same. These are the people that comprise the largest portion of our society, and these are the people that Ramsay is mocking. Is that either a right or a kind thing to do? Unless "doing the right thing" and "being kind" are out of style. They may just be. They don't glitter as prettily as flashing knives and lack the bombastic excitement of loud swear words flung about with macho style. There just might not be money to be found in them and that's where it all ends up, doesn't it.

Samuel Whiskers or the Roly Poly Pudding This is wonderful. Tom Kitten goes off on an adventure and almost ends up as dinner. The link is to the DVD which is absolutely marvelous. As is the book, naturally. Ah! A kitten for dinner! (It may not be de rigeur for us grown-ups but how the children grow wide-eyed at the idea )

Yoko's Lunch Curious George and the Pizza The M & M's Counting Book In the Night Kitchen Roald Dahl's Revolting Recipes Pat the Bunny. . .oops, no - that doesn't belong here!

I knew that, Steven. It just didn't seem to go along with the idea of romance so I ignored it momentarily.

Bobby Short at The Cafe Carlysle. Who would care about the food?

When someone opens the door to talk using these words "hate" in such a simple and childish manner, the tone of the discussion does change. It is not "mere" semantics. The way in which a person describes themselves through their language describes their world and way of thought. It has nothing to do with being "PC". It has to do with being clearly understood and then even more, to be understood as being intelligent and without rancor or demand. This is not a football game with teams where someone will win and someone will lose. This is life - and there are women in this world trying with all their wits to get a footing on "how to do it". To minimize their lives into a simpified packet of "do they cook? or do they not cook?" is so demeaning as to leave one with the impression that anyone who asks that question must either be (to use the words of someone better with them than I ever will be) "a fool or a knave".

Three things stand out in my mind from the previous discussion above - one is where someone stated that perhaps women are *not* learning to cook out of a sense of self-preservation. The other is where it was mentioned that women have a wonderful opportunity to pass the culture of cookery on to their children (as they always have) as it is their "way" or their place to do so. The third is the mention that it traditionally *has* been the women that do the home cooking. It is now different. It used to be traditional that men were the sole breadwinners and the woman had the "job" of running the household. Now the women are the breadwinners too. They log in as many hours as men in general. Therefore "tradition" must need to change somehow, or one of the sexes will be handling more than a decent share of the work of providing a decent life. *Has* it changed? Women do have a wonderful opportunity as the *traditional* ones in the kitchen to pass these things on to their children. But. How much time do the women have to do this? It is important here, to hear from the women who *do* work, who *do* try to cook - for accurate information on their own situations. It is vital not to generalize about the possibilities and potential that another persons life *should* have. (i.e. "Let us not speak till we have walked a mile in someone elses shoes.") Lastly the idea of self-preservation. It could be that when, in this confused society that we live in, the time comes that men show equal interest in caring for the family in the ways of "cookery" and its close sister in home-making, "cleanery", and that they prove competent and willing to be equal partners, that the idea of self-preservation will no longer need be in anyone's minds. God willing that we should be brought to such a place, and as soon as possible. Everyone, clearly, would benefit. (Except perhaps the tired man at the end of the work day who will be entering the kitchen alongside his wife and children. Then of course, the question asks begging: What will they cook? A fine dinner a la fancy restaurant? Or more likely a burger and fries? What will the answer be, when the children are yammering and hungry after their own long day. . .)

Let's try it on this way for size, shall we? "Recent headlines proclaim that WOMEN CAN COOK!!! Studies and evidence show that contrary to a growing belief that women can not cook, that indeed they can - and that astonishingly, they have been doing so since the beginning of recorded time. The lack of knowledge surrounding this fact has conclusively been linked to the grumblings of hungry men who don't like the fact that they can no longer count on finding the little lady waiting for them in the kitchen with her apron on after their long hard day at the office, offering up a beer, a cookie, and a smile. These men say they want their Tasty Cakes, and they want them FRESH and NOW and JUST THE WAY THEY LIKE THEM MADE! not from the damn grocery store that they might have to drive the car to in order to get them. The newest wave of information also includes data that suggests these men will next be claiming that women can not raise the children, either. Further studies to follow." Pah.

Nah. Had to be a come-on. Look at that coyly arched eyebrow over the "mi". Heh.

Thanks, prasantrin! Though I must admit that I am rather enchanted myself with that hot dog thing that Eastern Sun posted a little while ago - but my "favorites" do seem to keep changing as more marvellously evocative wonders appear.

No no no. Alinka and Daniel. You need help. My photography skills are available. They can make any decent thing look bad. Please.

Ethos Pathos Logos ...................................... These three principles drive any piece of rhetoric and by them we can define its validity and truth. *The clear ethical and moral base of the person presenting the argument. *The sense of emotional connection or importance that resides within the argument. *The logic of the argument. .............................................. Do these three things reside within this piece of rhetoric? (Ramsay's).

Is that someone's tongue hanging out of the front of that sandwich on the right hand side, Daniel?!

Again, Brian, I can see some of your points clearly. But again, why use the word "hate"? It is a strong word. Small hatreds are not the same as big hatreds. And anybody that has seen real hatred knows this and still reacts to this word as anethema. This is your father you are speaking of. You truly "hate" him for not being able to cook?! If you need to hate him, I would hope it would be for something larger than that, one skill that is not within his scope or perhaps his interest. Male or female, not everyone "needs" to love food. It is a pleasure and an excellent thing when they do. But to claim "lack of initiative and ignorance" in knowing how to cook as something good to use to *discriminate* between individuals in the human race does seem to me to have a higher than average arrogance to it. There are many ways to live. We do not have to "hate" people who choose different paths. Not unless they come up and punch us in the face or something, and personally I do not view "those who do not cook" as doing that to me. It may be that what you seek in a woman is that she does cook. It may be that you have not seen a lot of this. But sitting there with your notebook in hand, sorting out the "ones who do" from the "ones who don't" might keep you in a very limited position in terms of finding this thing. For nobody really wants to be assessed with that cold of an eye. Particularly when romance is somehow part of the picture in some way.

It's a funny one-liner, but not really fair, I think, to the point that was trying to be conveyed. Namely, that in exposing some of his friends to carefully prepared food, including his own cooking, he saw some recognition in his friends regarding how food could be treated with respect and enjoyed. They evidently did not gain this experience in their own home growing up whatever their other advantages. Whether someone happens to be wealthy and this occurs at an expensive restaurant is really besides the point. There is also quite a bit more in the post. Hey, I never thought I'd be sticking up for a Dookie. (Tarheel fan) ← In one of his previous points he conveyed a bit of personality in the conversation relayed between him and yet another fine young woman from a "good family" where his response to her was "I hate you" based on the fact that she stated that she could not cook. I don't care where exposure to food happens. I do care that people watch their arrogance levels - most particularly when they are claiming they "want to help". My own background is in fine dining and as being executive chef to the very wealthy. I have nothing against that world at all. The point that I see Brian trying to make is that *he* knows a lot. And apparently nobody else around him does. And he seems particularly concerned about the girls in this group not knowing a lot. As a girl (or as someone who used to be and who turned into a woman at a certain age) I am offended for these girls. *If* he knows so much, and *if* he cares so much, it simply is not coming off that way from where I sit and read it. This may be a function of his age. Nothing wrong with that. But as the world could use a few more "nice guys" rather than guys who sweep around sure of their mastery of all being arrogant to whomever stands before them - I felt it imperative to show my opinion of such behavior.

Well, yes. . .actually while I *can* remember many stories of chefs or *foodies* learning the ways and the wonders of food, the stories are generally set in a home kitchen or a family kitchen or the kitchen of a friend or even while standing in front of a lovely display of fruit at a market. There are not many stories to remember where the impetus was a dinner at Jean-Georges or others of that ilk. Maybe this will be the new path of foodwriting. "How Dining at the Altars of Foodiedom Made Me Who I Am Today" by A Knowledgeable M**F**er.

Facts and opinions are what were in the book.

I daresay the young lady might have learned *something* from her Cuban housekeeper in all those years had she chosen to. I *am* glad you decided to show her the light. With the help of Jean-George bien sur - collaborative effort. Divine. You are truly a mensch. *Mensch* is in the dictionary. At least it is in the one I own. It's a fairly decent edition. Not as pricey as my Maserati, so if you want to borrow it I won't mind. ............................................ Now can someone tell me the size of Gordie's shoes, please. I *really* need to know these things whenever I think of men.

The cant of "celebrity" is uninteresting. It has nothing to do with a whole lot of what is real *except* for utilizing the ability to strike a pose that many people (who are defined as "other-directed" by some social psycologists) will find more interesting than their own rather wonderful and interesting selves (if they would only look inward rather than to the television for answers). The cant of "celebrity" then choosing to define itself as social critic is no more than utter nonsense. It just takes the "other-focused" general public one step further into the realm of a world where ideas and beliefs are created based on. . .? A credible source? A knowledgeable source? Or is it a source that created itself for its own reasons - to feed its own huge ego. The cant of "celebrity" that has set itself up as social critic that *then* continues down this path of merry plunder upon others in a way that separates out *one* group for attention (because in choosing this group the largest amount of attention will again be mirrored back at the "celebrity") is hugely offensive. It smacks of a hubris that we are only too accustomed to eating. And it makes me gag.

I mean really. I've already learned how to put my own gas in the car. What more does Gordie want from me? Tell him to go poach his own damn quenelles.

Well, okay. I'll spill the beans. Actually, I didn't "spill" the beans. That. . .was split pea soup. I had to make it for a pot luck thing at the kids school - and as I was dashing back and forth between children and cat and ringing telephone, it started boiling. Ah, such lovely scum rises from split pea soup! Naturally, my thoughts went to this thread. I wanted to join in the halls of fame. So even though I had started skimming, I hastily threw it all back on. And went to grab my trusty camera. And I must say that my photography skills added an undeniably frightful look that did not even exist in real life! Woooo hoooo! If I had to title the thing, I would call it "Old Milt on a Massive Scale". Heh. ................................................. I feel so. . . .VALIDATED! Sigh. Must do this again some time. P.S. Actually, as so many of these things are, it was quite tasty.

Is this disgusting or what?