JohnL

I thought (and still think) Virginia with some seasoning (pun intended) has the intangibles to "run" a restaurant. The show as edited clearly shows Virginia done in by her meticulousness and desire to "get the food right." This attribute became a problem as she failed to focus on her staff enough while spending too much effort looking for perfection at the pass. Heather, I thought, overcame her lack of inventiveness and got the food out. A key comment was made regarding their food by the Red Rock guy--Virginia's short ribs were the "best he'd ever had..." while Heather's dish was very very good. So Heather a capable cook with good kitchen management skills (if she can deal with the bi polar thing) won out over Virginia who possesses a superior palate and some very good instincts. A close call. In the end Heather got the food out more smoothly. Her restaurant ran a bit more effectively than Virginia's. I also saw just how creepy all the other contestants were. The guys just a tad more creepy than the women. Clearly the two best candidates were in the final. Also--this contest was to be an "executive chef"--not an owner of a restaurant. I am certain that Heather will benefit from some "expert" guidance and supervision in "her" new restaurant. Red Rock (and Gordon ) are not stupid. anyway Ralph from season one ended up on Iron Chef America so who knows.......

This whole thread is IMOP based on a half truth that is intended to whip everybody into a frenzy. Here's how it works. Someone sees prices for some wines that are among a handful of very top wines and gets all bent out of shape. What ensues is an attempt to "blame" someone or some entity for this "outrageous" situation. So we get rants that are political (often with political resolutions), class based--those dastardly "yuppies." Elitist--"it's the speculators who don't really appreciate wine." or it's..... The truth is, there is a group of wines that meet the simple and basic criteria for high prices--finite and/or or small supply combined with high demand. The age old question of "what is anything worth?" answer--whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So folks like to attack the person or persons they hold responsible for this state of affairs. This is the real raison de etre for the whole argument. Some culprits: "The critics" --yes critics are influential in "pointing" up wines, and helping to increase demand. But please explain how hundreds of wines that receive high accolades (and yes scores) do not see any severe price rise? The speculators, sorry there is no real evidence that a large number of people are driving up the price of wine at the retail level. If wine was a good overall investment then mutual funds would be including wine in their portfolios. The key is "retail"--someone looks at the internet and sees a price for a bottle of Chateau whatever and freaks out--this is the secondary market which is always vulnerable to the vagaries and whims of fashion. It is not a real and valid barometer. (in fact--these people freaking our over , say Bordeaux prices on the internet always fail to see or mention the very reasonable and often real "bargains" in older Bordeaux available out there. The "yuppie scum" --this is my favorite! This one attempts to assign blame for high prices to a class of people. The argument is no different from one that would blame "poor" people who are in fact, large consumers of high end liquors and brandies like Remy Martin etc. "They don't (can't possibly) appreciate this stuff--they just drink it to be cool." I'm sorry, I simply do not assume that a group of "Wall street types" (or whatever 'type") does or does not appreciate anything. The fact is the market for fine wine has been growing and it includes all types! (maybe this is part of the reason for the increased demand). If all this isn't enough--folks turn to the actual wines in question. So with the appropriate sneer they blame those "cult wines" (I use the current "industry" accepted definition)--or those "garagistes" wines that are not worthy of demand. (only fools and status seeking yuppies would demand these wines). This conveniently avoids discussing these wines and their true merit or lack of merit--they are lumped together for "arguments sake." (perhaps rarity is crucial here--almost all these wines are made in tiny quantities. as for quality--well there should be room for debate). To simply dismiss these wines en masse is simply wrong. Now for the real truth. Bordeaux? Tons of it are available (I am really talking classed growths) at quite reasonable prices. From many vintages (2005 futures included). I am looking at just one catalog--Zachy's (a retailer not known for their low ball pricing). They are offering classed growth Bordeaux for 2005 at prices from thirty bucks or so on up. And lot's of these are ninety point or higher wines (if that turns you on). Burgundy? How about magnum of Beaune Clos Des Ursules 2002 (very fine vintage)--a magnum! For Ninety Five dollars! (oh it is highly rated by the critics too). Just peruse the internet--there are more bargains on fine wines then there are outrageous prices. The point is--it all comes down to supply and demand. Do you think that if fifty thousand cases of Cheval Blanc 1947 (or any high demand wine) suddenly and magically became available on the internet (or anywhere) the current high price might just see at least a little drop? If D'Yquem made a hundred thousand cases instead of a hundred thousand bottles..... It is also true that because of the potential to make a good profit due to the markets expanding worldwide more people are putting more effort into making wines at all price points. The wine making is better today than ever before--all wines all wine styles. You are more likely to find a wine to your liking and budget today than ever before. And really! There will always be things that are expensive or out of reach. It is not just wine. How many of these complainers drank Romanee Conti or Margaux ten or twenty years ago on even a semi regular basis? What are the odds that these folks would have "discovered" one of the 1200 bottles or so of Screaming Eagle on the shelf of their local wine shop? So, I say, a lot of this argument about prices is patently false. It looks at a very small (relative) picture and relies on a lot of faulty assumptions. It is often driven by an elitism (wine snobbery) and ignores a simple truth--prices are a result of supply and demand. It seeks to "blame" rather than explain. OK, you "discover" a great wine for twenty bucks a bottle (by the way, let's be serious about these 'discoveries" the wine was already discovered--an importer and/or a distributor "and a retailer have all "discovered" that wine). So you buy a case or two and tell some friends, maybe you post a tasting note here or elsewhere. you serve it at dinner parties proudly showing off your "discovery" and your good taste. You return to the wine shop and the wine is now thirty five bucks a bottle.--how could this be!?? Was it reviewed by those cretins at the Wine Spectator, are dastardly yuppies in on your little secret? is your "discovery" becoming God forbid--fashionable!? Well-if you want to really get to the bottom of things--look in the mirror! If a thousand people "discover" a wine that is not produced in great quantity then guess what will happen? So do you take your "discoveries" and drink them in the darkness of your basement hoping against all hope that no one else finds out about them? Well multiply this behavior a bit and maybe the retailer no longer carries the wine, maybe because only you and few other "cognoscenti" really appreciated the wine--it disappears from the market altogether! anyway...hey! look at this! Zachy's is selling Malescot St Exupery a classed growth 2005 vintage for fifty bucks a bottle--and a ninety pointer too!!!!! or want something more "statusy"?--they got Pichon baron 2005 for sixty!! hey and Pichon Comtesse for only one sixty five but hey talk about status and it got ninety six points!! Wow!!! and look--here's a whole page of Bordeaux for under twenty bucks!!! maybe things ain't so bad. let's just drink up and enjoy life--too short to worry about what I can't afford. now if those damn yuppies would stop driving up the prices of designer dress shirts!!!! In the words of FL Jim (who seems to be enjoying life) Cheers!!!!

Ya know--I immediately thought of Arthur's too. Arthur's is probably the only place(s) that can be labeled : "The New York steakhouse experience but cheap." The drawback is New York is too expensive a town for a "cheap NY steakhouse" so you gotta go to Jersey!!!! (not really a drawback IMOP--NJ has a lot of food stuff goin on--including dining with the best New York view). I suppose Angelo and Maxie would be ok though I wouldn't call this a "cheap" experience. as for Tad's--they must be doin something right--I can't believe they are still around. I once read a great review of Tad's that said--"..............and you don't have to salt your steak, the chef sweats on it!"

We are heading back to Amada end of August. After an absolutely superb meal in May four dining companions and I are once again boarding AMTRAK from New York and returning to Amada. The anticipation is really building!!! I would add that one truly remarkable thing about the restaurant is that the kitchen is able to turn out so many small (and not so small) plates for a large crowd--that are perfectly cooked. Fish done/cooked to within that tiny window of perfection. Meats and vegetables --all perfectly cooked. This kind of attention and focus is found at very high end establishments (Bernardin and Per Se here in NYC for eg).--the entire kitchen deserves applause!! And--- (as if that's not enough) the best damn sangria anywhere!

I suspect that for some reason the behavior of the crowds at Fairway has created the sometimes cranky staff. Pan's experience is inexcusable behavior on the store's part. Yet, often the behavior of fellow shoppers is such that I am suprised the staff are not armed with whips and chairs! Perhaps it is the atmosphere. I was once attempting to edge my way closer to the tiny cheese counter at the UWS branch and watched while a shopper reached into one of the barrels of olives scooped up some ate them and then tossed the pits back into the barrel. I have had numerous close calls with people with carts (the aisles are too damn narrow for carts) and have been literally elbowed and shoved aside by people straining to get to a counter or force their way past me in their quest for whatever. The whole store(s) layouts and selling methods and merchandising seem to bring out the worst in shoppers (and staff). Also the places are literally crammed with stuff--much of which is not all that good. Compare this with the more sedate and calm atmosphere at Citarella next door (even when there is a crush at this place the patrons are better behaved). Aisles are bigger, no carts, and less self serve. they also have higher prices for the most part but what price civility?! FG is right--the quality (of many items) and prices at Fairway are excellent--if one can put up with the chaos and rude behavior from patrons and often from staff.

What/where exactly is "downtown?"

Well said!!!

Heidi- I rather like your take on things. I think we agree for the most part. first-- The smoking thing--I believe there is not a lot of evidence that smoking has a negative impact on the palate. To the contrary, somewhere I read there is evidence that people and their tastebuds actually "adjust." many respected chefs and gourmands smoke. As for predicting a winner. It is Heather that is likely to be offered a shot at working in one of Gordon's kitchens She has potential to be a good chef--running a kitchen. I think she is already a sous chef somewhere professionally. She could do a good job running a kitchen. I think she has a long way to go to running a restaurant. which is why I believe Virginia has the best shot at winning this thing. She is simply too good in the intangibles areas. My money is on her to create the better and more popular menu and decor. (last season Ralph clearly won out on these points) She has the focus and savvy to master the quality control at the pass. however-- She needs muster the self assuredness to run her kitchen and get the food out. (no small task for her--if she fails here Heather wins) so Virginia wins (the story arc is talented but self doubting girl with minimal technique/kitchen skills a true dark horse-- learns enough from the master to make the most of her intuitiveness and desire to serve good food to persevere and triumph! Heather with good skills and the fiery temperament gets a job as a sous chef in one of Gordon's kitchens where she will hopefully learn that in addition to being a good line cook and getting food cooked under pressure ---a good chef has to be concerned about the quality of the food and aware of his or her customers. In the end everyone wins! (then again I could be wrong)!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you. Profanity is part of our language --like it or not. It can be used "artfully" or it can be abused. It is used in everyday conversation. Some people use it to good effect others abuse or over use it. I find it hard to believe that today--anyone is shocked by it. However--good editing is often a plus and good editing is not censorship.

If I recall correctly, she was one of the only ones who didn't smoke - or at least I never saw her smoke - that alone could account for the ability to taste food. The fact that she nailed his dish either says she has a great palate or that she saw the recipe in his book - that would require reading, however. I wonder how long she'd last at Chez Gordon. ← "Smoking" affecting the palate???? I would challenge your theory with one word:BOURDAIN! Really-- I think the whole show is not about finding a person who can "cook" the best. It is not about finding the best line cook under pressure. It is a search for someone who can oversee a restaurant. Manage people. Understand customers and what food they will respond to. Someone who has some intangibles that translate into a successful restaurant operator. Not someone who can turn out large numbers of attractive plates of complicated dishes with no variation in quality under extreme pressure. Or someone who can perfectly cook a piece of salmon a hundred times a night amid unimaginable chaos. As admirable as these skills are--they are not what this show is about. To get there. The idea is Ramsey tries to find not a superb line cook but someone who can do what he does. Someone he can "whip" into shape (sometimes literally). Someone who has the innate talents he feels are critical. All the contestants have flaws--that is the challenge--what makes a good story. I would suggest that Keith was doomed back in the episode where Gordon warned him about displaying his "crack" to table seven and he continued to play the role of complete slob. That was two strikes--the first for being slobby the second for being so arrogant as to be unwilling to take a strong hint and change. This show wants to point up how contestants who "get it" re Gordon's advice and cajoling and can overcome their own arrogance and shortcomings. In this area it is Virginia who despite some pretty intense flaws has shown she really gets it and wants to improve. She was/is the least arrogant and self assured of the bunch. But she has some very important attributes--she has a very good palate. She seems to be understanding Gordon's approach to food. She is attractive and knows how to use that to her benefit. She is creative--her dishes are mostly winners in creativity and most important they sell--the public (not just Gordon) likes them. Heather has many positive attributes but her arrogance and cockiness are still in the way-hindering her progress. She spent too much time grousing about how Virginia bought Gordon's cook book (as flirting) and when Virginia bested heather and Keith in recreating Gordon's dish--Heather still didn't get it complaining Virginia must have read the recipe! really, it is Virginia who has developed/evolved the most over the course of the show. I think the fact that she was on the block so much and just continued to persevere is something Gordon really admires in her. Heather is still pretty much the same person. So the finale will be very interesting. I believe the last test plays to Virginia's talents more than Heather's. Virginia has an edge in understanding what the public likes in food and should design a popular menu/dishes that sell. Virginia is going to have to overcome her insecurities and run her kitchen and manage people effectively though. Heather will have to lose her belief that she deserves to win because she is a better cook and needs to conceptualize and execute a popular menu. She has an edge in that while not unflappable--she is stronger than Virginia. Will she go overboard in pushing her team to aggressively? Will Virginia suck it up and run her kitchen effectively? That's the fun in all this. It is reality TV after all!!!! now About those dancers on "so you think you can dance..."

The MSNBC piece is typical of what we get these days. In fact, MSNBC seems to have done nothing more than print an AP story for the fat piece linked here. It is amazing but they (MSNBC) also carried a piece about the need to consume some fat with your vegetables earlier (you can access it by linking to the fat story in question and scrolling down to the listing of other nutrition related stories at the bottom of the page). obviously MSNBC do not read their own stories--or worse--just don't care. It was easier to just reprint the AP piece. So a piece of shoddy initial reporting gets passed around and becomes conventional wisdom! The AP story is based on a study that raises more questions than answers (it simply does not pass the smell test) in the first place. --14 people 18-40? I am no statistician but....... some other problems have been noted by other posters here. unfortunately, the whole food and diet and nutrition area has become highly politicized. The press should be gatekeepers, challenging stories like this with healthy skepticism and providing the public with perspective on these issues.

I think you have touched upon why Burmese cuisine has not established itself here. (by the way isn't Burma called Myanmar these days?) To become established here in the US, I believe there are several factors that can lead to success. One is a substantial population of immigrants living here and or some level of commerce between countries--a familiarity with a country's culture. Myanmar (Burma) is a fairly closed country being a military dictatorship and I believe there is a trade embargo in effect at the moment. (they never really had much business dealings/trade with the US anyway. There is certainly not much of an immigrant population here. there are few, if any, "Burmatowns." Also the cuisine of the country has to be distinctive enough and relatively easy to "get" It seems to be a challenge to describe Burmese cooking. Also it has to be fairly varied. I think Korean food has a large enough immigrant population behind it but the cuisine is not easy for American palates to adapt to. The reliance upon fermented items (mainly kimche) as noted by Jason Perlow in another thread, may be responsible, at least in part--the cuisine is too "foreign" to our palates. Malaysian cuisine is another hard one. The easiest to "get" dish is Rijsttafle (which is not Malaysian but rather a Dutch/Malaysian concoction). A lot of the rest of Malaysian cooking is really much like Indian, Thai, Chinese etc etc in nature. There isn't anything really unique (other than its polyglot nature). Bourdain did a great episode here that explained a lot. Satay's are a staple of many cuisines--Thai, Vietnamese, Indian all better established here. It sounds like Burmese cuisine is "like" other more established cuisines here (it is like Indian etc). With no substantive population to support and nurture it and little familiarity with the peoples and culture, it is easy to see why it has not established itself here. Someone who has a good grasp of the cuisine and cooking could start up a place which would be unique and have a good chance at getting some notoriety--they would certainly stand out. But I wonder if the cooking (and I am not very familiar with it myself) is distinctive enough and easy enough to get/define without the native population. That is it is a hard sell with no beachhead established here. Minneapolis was never known for it Asian restaurants until the late seventies and early eighties when large numbers of Vietnamese and Thai peoples immigrated there (many of the charities and relief funds were based there). Now, one can get some pretty incredible vietnamese, Thai etc food there.

Think about it for a second! You are an investor in a new restaurant. For your executive chef--someone who is tasked with representing the enterprise to the trade to workers to customers to the press--is Keith who you want in that role? He may have some talents and skills (he is surely a better cook than Virginia) but without an attitude make over he will always be a line cook. He clearly thinks he is way better than he actually is. Virginia the least cocky of the three has enough humility to be willing to learn and to see herself in a more realistic light. (sometimes she is too unsure of herself) It was critical when Ramsey challenged her to step up take the challenge rather than quit. Heather , on the other hand, has the cockiness and drive (and the cooking skills) but shows that she is not always as conscientious as she could be and sometimes is too self assured and not really picking up on Gordon's advice. Also can she rise to the occasion and create recipes that will sell? (two areas Virginia has shown some talent in).

I disagree. First, the goal is to find someone who can "run" a restaurant. It is not about who is the best "line cook." In a number of important areas Virginia has shown that she has the raw (and I stress raw) talent or abilities that are important in "running" a restaurant while the other contestants showed failings in these areas. The key IMOP is to determine what gordon believes to be the key skills and temperament required to be an "executive chef." Virginia is clearly not a very good line cook but is this important? She will be running a restaurant and supervising what should be many skilled professional line cooks. Virginia does have probably the best palate of all the contestants. being able to "design" and construct dishes that customers will like and order is of the utmost importance--not necc in being able to actually cook the dish. Those contests where consumer response to the contestants dishes are critical! (Virginai has done well here). Gordon is constantly harping on desire and drive but also about caring and meticulousness --another key criteria. Virginia managed the pass well last night and importantly, she caught the "mistake." Heather did not--allowing lumpy mashed potatoes to get to a diner is way more critical a mistake to Gordon than Virginia's melt downs as a line cook. Again, Heather is probably the best cook but is she possessing of the tools/potential to run a place? also Keith clearly demonstrated that he may have talents--his temperament is lacking. He talks a good game but when he really has to lead he falls down--he is way too self centered. The attitude thing! It seems he had to be prodded way too much by Gordon. So, I believe the two best contestants are in the final. Virginia has shown she can design dishes that customers will buy she has a good palate. She has shown that she cares about the food and has a good palate. Can she show some improved skill in managing the kitchen--people management--under fire? Heather is a good cook but the show is not about who can cook. She does have drive and passion but can she show she cares about the food and is creative in designing a dish that will sell? Stay tuned!

I believe the linked piece contains all one needs to know about this silly gizmo. "eventually he came up with a molded plastic device that looks like a regular non drip pourer and has an air hole to speed up oxygenation...." So--is it the magnets or could it possibly be the "oxygenation" thing? One could save a lot of money by simply aerating the wine! or............maybe not! Aerating the wine "properly" would involve a special opening/cork removal system and a $100 decanter designated specifically for the varietal or type of wine and then some special wine glasses that are only to be used for each type of wine to enhance its taste and then......

I was being a bit facetious. Sure it is important to "know" where your food comes from. On the other hand, things have gotten far too complicated to the point of absurdity. It is not just big corporations (agribusiness if you will) but the whole health food, whole food, slow food.....and on and on-- movements have spawned a complex debate over how food is produced and a set of terms that even its proponents are arguing over. (see Pollan vs Mackey). They have also muddied the waters in assigning quality and In the end, I find that we are may be in danger of losing sight over what I feel is the single most important aspect to any food--taste! There are far too many agendas complicating things. The politics of food. Somewhere each consumer needs to balance things out on their own. (as do producers of food). So "heirloom" is in the hopper with "grass fed" and "organic" and a zillion other terms which do not necessarily have anything to do with flavor. However the proponents are equating these terms with "better" or "higher quality" when in fact, they are what they are (if the proponents can even agree on a definition). If I get a really great tasting tomato I am naturally curious as to who produced it and how and where it came from--I am not stupid--I wanna repeat my nice tomato experience! But labeling the tomato as "organic" or "heirloom" or whatever is simply marketing to me as are brands like "ugly tomatoes" or "Bluebell farms" -- Just like "peeky toe crab" or "dayboat scallops" or--the list goes on and on! I do have some trust that the FDA and the USDA are trying to do their best to ensure truth in advertising (this is an extremely difficult task) and I assume that the "heirloom" tomato is really an "heirloom" but these are all secondary to me---in the end it just has to taste good!

FYI The current Food and Wine (september issue) features some of the dishes from Amada in their "Chef recipes made easy" series. They take some of his small plates and translate them into larger main courses. Nice tribute to Garces.

This view is way too cynical even for me! Though you have touched upon exactly what is clouding the issue at hand. It is all about definitions. For example regarding beef: You explain that quality to you means "truly been grass fed" --from an animal that, "has lived its life as humanely as possible." Just try to define each of these terms! The ongoing debate over the USDA attempts to establish some order here are testimony to the difficulty (I believe impossibility) of ever completing the task with even minimal agreement among concerned parties. For me, quality means that the beef tastes good. As I see it, the confusion revolves around definitions like "organic" and "grass fed" and "natural" and on and on. Non of which guarantees anything re: taste. And as for quality--well depends on what your definition of quality is. Just as one can find a steak labeled choice that is tastier than one labeled prime, a hothouse tomato that is tastier than an "heirloom" tomato, lettuce from a large farm that uses pesticides vs one grown on a small organic farm (I'd love to see the definitions of large farm and small farm--as well as for family owned farm--remember Ford is a Family owned operation). Grading systems often leave something to be desired too--often second growth Bordeaux is better tasting than first growth etc. It isn't big corporations and their advertising that are necc the problem here. It is the small (smaller) operations attempting to convince us consumers that smaller is better, grass fed is better, organic is better..... Everyone has an advertising/marketing claim. From the slick advertising of Agway and General Mills to the "aw shucks" hand printed signs used by Fred your "local" (another one of these pesky definitions) "family" farmer to "Pete and Gerry's" organic free range omega three natural healthy eggs. Hence debates between Whole Foods (Mackey) and health food (oops another definition needed) proponents (there's a nifty thread here at eGullet) and other exposes of the so called health food industry (yeah all those small family farmers add up to one pretty big industry--oh no! here we are with "big" and "small" again). As for me. Thank the Lord for the FDA and the USDA et al--for all their faults--and there are plenty--at least they are trying to inject some sanity into food labeling. Thanks also, to Merriam Webster--I will stick with their lexicon for my definitions. (even though they are not often perfectly clear). Most of all--thanks for my own taste buds. While I applaud and always try to try (taste) foods from many sources big and small and while I do have an appreciation for artisinal products and am concerned that my food be healthful and wholesome (whatever that means)--most important to me is that my food tastes good! Quality to me means tasting two tomatoes side by side blind and selecting the better tasting one regardless of how it was grown, who grew it (or how large or small an operation they run) or where it was grown or what its name is or brand or what kind of label it has or what kind of packaging (if any) or.....

What if certain canned tomatoes are heirloom, protected by breed and area of growth, like San Marzano? Frankly, I have had many fresh but non-heirloom tomatoes with excellent flavour. The most surprising came from a Portuguese back yard gardener, who saves his beefstake seeds from year to year (not supposed to ) and can beat the pants off of anything from the market. Yellow beef fat is another matter: An older animal will have darker, yellower fat than the yearlings we usually see in stores. Grass may produce the same colour fat, but who's to know when it's displayed on the shelf? ← "Naming" or labeling produce and meat etc can really get out of hand and become confusing. In the end a label is not a guarantee of quality. It can help guide a consumer somewhat. Since we are talking about produce there are many variables other than the type or brand--the grower or producer and the techniques they employ and the weather are two at least as far as tomatoes are concerned. I am also not sure about assigning value to a specific brand or type. Grass fed better than grain fed or heirloom better than ...... I would agree there are differences in flavor.

The truth is most people are probably confused about bottled water period. Dasani and Aquafina are not the result of someone filling the bottles directly from a city water supply. As other posters noted the water receives additional treatment. They are in compliance with all the government regulations. It is debatable as to what if any, the benefits of source water (Evian etc) vs purified water are. Or spring water vs mineral water or.... As for flavor/taste--that's debatable also. The Europeans probably started the bottled water industry with their spa's. One could certainly question the marketing of these spa's with their claims of providing a "cure." The England debacle for Coke is more a result of their using the term "pure" on the label and in advertising. The authorities were not so concerned with the fact that the source Coke used was the water supply but rather the inference by using "pure" in selling the water implying that the source water (the drinking supply) was not pure. There's a huge element of "gottcha" in play here. I wonder who is more exaggerated here-- Coke or the journalists who "uncovered" this. (my understanding is that most bottled supermarket waters in England are sourced from the local drinking supply--in essence "purified" water) One could easily view the fad with bottled water's as a fools game--paying for drinking water no matter where it comes from or how it is advertised and marketed. Taking this view, the Europeans come out as the most gullible with their infatuation with their so called spa waters. One could also look at the situation from a practical view--bottled water from anywhere is convenient and an alternative to soda or other beverages. it can also be better for certain purposes for those whose tap water is not optimum--too hard or soft or sulfurous--brewing tea or coffee. In this case any purified water would work. I wonder if it might be more informative if legally any source indication was banned from advertising and labels unless the bottler could prove their water was different in content and taste. Every water would be labeled as simply water!

Good point. It seems that dining in general, is much less formal and regimented than it used to be. thus--diners should be less likely to find themselves intimidated. even wine service seems to be friendlier. I wonder if the trend is not limited to the major metros on each coast and just to the US.

I'm watching part 2 right now. Err.....you know, I don't particularly like McDonald's myself, and only eat it maybe once a quarter, usually when driving and need a quick bite...and I eat their salads and a bottle of water. But, are we adults? Do we raise our own children? I can make plenty of healthy choices if I eat at McD's. When my husband orders a Big Mac, it's his choice...and he doesn't now that he's learned what the nutrition info is. Mr. Schlosser's biggest complaint seems to be the marketing to children. But while I agree with his visual marketing example (World Cup-related marketing via the french fries on an ad when you walk in), I disagree with his complaint that McD's sells food in schools. According to the exec, they do not. Apparently, what's really happening is that the SCHOOL in question has made a decision to bring McDs in for the kids once a week, not that the company has opened a franchise within the school. I'm not seeing how this is the fault of the corporation; it's the fault of the school that thinks this is a responsible choice for a meal program. McDonald's core products are probably not healthy on a regular basis, and they've frankly never claimed that. But nor would be a diet of hamburgers from any other source ranging from, say Jack in the Box, to Five Brothers (that's the one in the DC area, right?), to a burger at Peter Luger. A proper diet involves moderation, and, frankly, a consumer that thinks about what they're ingesting. ← Your post reflects a reasoned approach to this issue. A case can be made that many foods are "unhealthy." (most in fact--show me a food item and there's a case against it somewhere) Hamburgers? You are correct to note that any hamburger (not just MacDonald's) is considered by many to be unhealthful. The problem is--we have taste buds. eating involves pleasure. Most pleasure involves some risk. we can temper that risk with moderation. we really can have our cake and eat it too. I am all for information that enables people to weigh the risk rewards involved with eating and food. That's where it ends though. What is a bit scary to me is that there seems to be a growing movement of people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of what we should be eating (or not eating). First we get the overheated arguments that we have a crises. Then comes the demonization--the evil empire--the enemy (in this case a fast food chain). Next when the warnings don't seem to be working-- the rationale is established--"they can't help themselves!--they are addicted!" and we have the calls for bans for regulations--we can't save ourselves we are helpless so we need to be saved! again--this is not just about MacDonald's or fast food chains-- it is about hamburgers it is about beef--it is about choice. We need some reason and common sense here. I don't have a problem with regulating advertising to children. I believe we need to educate kids and parents about nutrition. We need to step back and let people make their own choices and learn to live with it if people don't make the same choices we would. By the way--I have no problem putting pressure on MacDonald's et al to improve their methods and offerings.

I did read it. Enjoyed it as well. Interestingly, I once dined in Le Cirque (in its original spot) with people who were known to the owner and staff. We were literally "fawned" over all night. (the owner showering my pasta with white truffles until I begged him to stop) the place clearly was a dining club for the rich and famous (and infamous). There's no way my wife and I (dining alone anonymously) would have received anywhere near the level of service we got that night. I wouldn't expect it. One must understand that a restaurant establishes a clientele and an ambience that clientele feels comfortable in. When going to a restaurant you really have to know what that ambience is and you simply have to conform. A place that thrives on celebrities has to be careful they don't put a table of over exuberant tourists next to a table of movie starts etc. --a table of unruly kids next to a table of couples having a romantic dinner. I have found that if you look the part and act the part you will be accepted most anywhere these days. When you are accepted you will be comfortable (even though that tie is choking you--you can always loosen it a bit)--the place is comfortable with you. If I absolutely have to wear sneakers to dinner--there are plenty of places serving very good food that will not care. Grenouille, Bernardin, Per Se, Masa, JGV are not among them. So why would I go and force myself on them and their patrons? And then get pissed off that I did not get a good reception? Fat Guy in his book noted the benefits of becoming a regular patron of a restaurant. Anyone rich or not so rich can do this. First ya gotta "fit in." as for problematic waitstaff, captains, hostesses etc--I don't see this often anymore--today--one has to be careful when dealing with the public--you never know who that anonymouse person is. I have spoken to people who mis took a certain "attitude" some places cultivate for disrespect and felt intimidated. The trick is to at least have an idea of what the restaurant you are going to dine at is all about and try to look and act the part. And above all refuse to let anyone intimidate you.

First, intimidation takes two. No one who refuses to let themselves be intimidated will be....intimidated. Second, most times, intimidation involves a certain amount of insecurity on the part of the intimidated. life will be much easier (and more enjoyable) if one "fixes" the insecurity rather than develop a chip on one's shoulder or spends a lifetime cowering and whimpering in the corner. Third, restaurants cultivate an ambiance and atmosphere for their patrons. This is so people can be comfortable where they are dining. Thus, a restaurant whose clientele is comprised of couples sharing a romantic evening out and/or business people with their clients would prefer an atmosphere where young children are scurrying about or playing with their game boys etc just as kids would be uncomfortable having a bunch of dressed up adults ruining their fun. So we have Chucky Cheese and Le Bernardin (and everything in between). A big problem today is that IMOP, too many people are so self centered as to want to have it their way (not just their burgers either). If a restaurant has a dress code then it becomes the restaurant's fault/issue. Some people just do not care--they wanna eat where they wanna eat and they will wear whatever they wanna wear. (some of these arrogant) people are so childlike as to warrant banishment to Chucky Cheese! The real shame of this is there are so many places with quite liberal and relaxed dress codes from low to high end that I wish there were more "formal" restaurants. Part of the bargain between establishment and patron is that the patron will conform just a bit so that the ambiance of the restaurant can be maintained. (I know conform is a dirty word to a lot of you children of the sixties). If I were dining in Le Bernardin and a person in jeans and sneakers was seated I would be annoyed. I would consider my possibilities: 1--go Soprano on you 2--speak to the management 3--keep quiet and think twice about returning This is not about you! It is about me! (really all of us who have to put up with the likes of you--the collective we, if you will). There is plenty of room within the rules for individuality. In the days of the original Bouley I dined at a table next to one occupied by Sammy Hagar (pre Van Halen) who like the rest of the room's diners was attired in a conservatively tailored suit and tie. The suit was red corduroy and the tie a bright yellow. No one seemed uncomfortable! (he certainly didn't). Finally, this is never about rich or poor--it is about insecurity. If one feels like one does not belong some place for whatever reason one will be uncomfortable and one will be inclined to blame the establishment for that discomfort. Truly snotty wait staff are easily dealt with by secure patrons. so If you are really uncomfortable wearing shoes and sporting a tie (really there are dressy looking shoes with sneaker like soles available today) then don't force yourself upon the restaurant and their patrons where shoes and a tie are the norm. you will be uncomfortable and we will be uncomfortable. There are plenty of options for you. or Suck it up and go with the flow!

Is the Park better than River Palm, Mignon, Mortons, Frankie and Johnnies, Ruth Chris. This Park place seems to be so great. I guess nobody goes to the Park anymore though it must be too crowded. ←