JohnL

these threads always start with innuendo and then it just keeps building. Rather than attempt to hint at a massive conspiracy, can anyone look at the two restaurants in question and present some solid evidence that they are not deserving of being in the top two or three restaurants in their respective categories? I haven't been to Park and I have dined at Esty street several times (though I haven't been there recently). I always found it to be one of the better spots in North New Jersey area. Northern NJ is a relatively small area with relatively few top notch restaurants (my guess is there are a dozen or so) so naturally 1,000 or so respondents is a pretty decent turnout. Tommy pretty much put the Park/steak issue into perspective in this thread. If Park is not number one it surely has to be in the top two or three. so far--no one has presented any evidence that Esty street is not one of the top two or three spots for fish in Northern NJ. I just can't see where there is any fix or conspiracy here. NJ Monthly is a reputable publication and if the poll was fixed they run the risk of losing their credibility--it just doesn't make sense. It is pretty boring to see restaurant owners and chefs and other employees hint that these polls are fixed with the results tied into advertising. Never have I seen any credible evidence to support these veiled hints--they always seem to remain innuendo and never emerge as a well supported specific charge. So, a lot of this makes little sense. If the Park and/or Esty Street served lousy food--if there was a large number of diners who howled in complaint or if reviews by sources other than NJ Monthly were in total disagreement then I might believe there was a problem here! until i see some evidence otherwise there doesn't seem to be anything "fishy" about Esty street and there seems to be little support for anyone with a "beef" over the Park's poll results.

You are absolutely right when you note that it is possible to purchase locally produced crap. Despite the arguments, the relationship between location and flavor is not uniform or linear. But on the whole, locally produced unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like produce, are at minimum fresher and often better tasting (think Jersey vs. Florida tomatoes, John). Of course, the conundrum for the movement is precisely what you point out with your closing remark about Whole Foods. I also have no problem with WFM marketing morality as much as or more than they sell groceries--as John Mackey himself, whose own politics are decidedly libertarian (rather unusual for someone who embraces the food values he does), would note, in a free marketplace, anyone can choose to follow or ignore certain values when buying merchandise. But one of the underlying premises behind the whole local/organic/slow food movement -- sometimes unspoken but there nonetheless -- is that "small is beautiful," to borrow from that famous treatise on "economics as if people mattered." As some of the comments on the thread about Wal-Mart selling organic products--and the chapter on "Big Organic" in Pollan's book--should make clear, for many, "large-scale organic production" is a contradiction in terms. And yet a company like WFM cannot help but stimulate such a thing if it is to be truly national in scope and reach. Actually, John, if you believe that any of those goals are worthwhile, you should give two cheers for Whole Foods for trying as much as it can to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. That Mackey responded to Pollan's criticism by instructing his store managers to purchase more items "at the back door" to me signals that even if a lot of what WFM does is (as Pollan put it) "supermarket pastoral," he does try to put his ideals into action. You may not agree that those ideals are worth the effort, but I don't think you can call the man who espouses them a hypocrite. And yet I realize that by your earlier statement about taste, you hold other values in higher esteem. But wouldn't you agree that oftentimes large-scale industrial production removes the flavor and character from many foodstuffs? ← Good points Sandy. I believe that large scale "industrial" production can co-exist with small artisanal produced items. Each can (and do) improve as methods--large scale and small improve. Maybe I long for retailer/entrepreneurs who are simply concerned with finding and offering the best quality items as opposed to folks like Mr Mackey who is attempting to find quality items that are produced to moral and ethical standards that are at best a bit vague. Just google "organic" and "health food" and "natural"--there is an ongoing debate as to what these terms mean between absolutists and pragmatists and everyone in between. I happen to believe that all pesticides are not evil. I also do not believe that animals are equivalent to humans on the food chain. While I am cautious about animals pumped full of antibiotics as a preemptive measure I am also not so worried about cows that get antibiotics when they get sick. I am reasonable. (at least I try to be). I am all for consumer awareness and education about food production, as long as the hysteria and scare mongering are absent. I happen to believe that mass produced chickens are often better tasting than many free range (or so called because there's plenty of debate as to just what free range denotes) birds. I also prefer corn fed beef to grass fed beef. The same folks who revere fresh made bread often also wax nostalgic over a PB and J on Wonder Bread. I do have a real problem with those who make a case for moral and ethical superiority for some products vs others. But I really believe that it is good that there are many choices. These choices are due in no small part to people like Pollan and Mackey --so I credit them. To get back to the Pollan, Mackey debate. Mackey is attempting to sell based upon strict criteria that go well beyond just quality. He is putting himself and WF into the debate over how these criteria are defined (and who will define them). He is bound to be tripped up and to stumble (he may even fall). Pollan is simply calling Mackey to account.

What's wrong with selling production methods and provenance? A lot of people care how their food is produced. For example, a person might want to buy fair trade coffee, and would like to shop somewhere that supplies it. What's so wrong with that? ← Nothing really. Information is a good thing. However, a lot of the terminology noting provenance and or production methods is vague or mis-used. There is a lot of confusion. Also terminology often has little or too little or nothing to do with taste and quality. Even Mouton and Margaux make poor quality wines every now and then. As for "fair trade" there is even room for confusion here. Consumers should be aware of food related issues and ask questions and try to be informed so they can make good decisions for themselves. I am a bit wary of altruistic labels --really any labels that become selling points. I do see a benefit in raising awareness of important issues overall though.

We recently met friends at a restaurant they suggested. Via Emilia. Manhattan in the twenties off Park Ave South. First off--this is a very good spot. The cooking is Emilia Romagna. great pastas--the Lasagna using a large square pasta with a very good Bolognese type sauce is broader and not as high (or stacked) as that from other regions.--superb! and cotechino--one of the great sausages of the world! (served with white beans) anyway-- it was sweltering here in NY (it still is) like Miami in July but without the beach! I was conflicted-- in the mood for a glass of red wine--but something refreshing--and also up to the rustic food. The wine list is entirely wines from Emilia Romagno--(no Sangria no Beaujolais or cotes du Rhone or rose or...). I went for a glass of Lambrusco! Perfect! I suspect that the snobs and geeks who have looked down at Riunite are really missing something. (actually Riunite is really not all that bad). Lambrusco which can be drier or slightly sweet and wonderfully fizzy is so good on a hot day and goes so well with foods that would normally overpower most whites (barbeque is one for eg). A red that combines a bit of fizz with chillability (this stuff is so good served chilled) and the body and oomph of a red wine-- Let's not get carried away--this is not Ch Margaux with a touch of soda water and an ice cube-- it is a simple wine meant to refresh and accompany food. Once again--proof that those Italians just seem to have it all in perspective!!! ps a good Lambrusco is the "Medici Ermete" 2004.

A long time ago, I was dining in a restaurant and noticed a Colgin '92 Herb Lamb Cabernet on the wine list. this wine had just begun to appear on radar screens in the wine press with some very good reviews. I ordered a bottle. I found the wine to be very very good--it was subtle and had an elegance with a core of complex fruit. Most of all it had a wonderful balance and symmetry. A lot of time has passed and Colgin has been lumped into a misnamed category of "California Cult" wines. I believe that the term cult was originally applied to denigrate the wines by creating a convenient category for detractors to dismiss them. Worse, the term "cult" is often used to explain away the popularity of these wines. (It's not the wines but rather the blind devotees). I also have a hard time reconciling a lot of what I read about Colgin (indeed about most of these wines) with my own (and others) experiences. I also believe that these wines have been done a great disservice by this category. Without getting into a debate over etymology i offer the following thoughts: --they are in great demand and thus expensive and difficult to find --the number of opinions about these wines far surpass the number of people who have much tasting experience --they do not all taste the same. Lumping them in this category can not have much to do with how the wines taste. --they apparently, do age well. These wines when released were delicious and drinkable young. many detractors stated that the wines couldn't possibly be worth the money as they were not age worthy. True, a wine's aging potential should be a factor in its value as should a wine's track record, these should be weighed against the amount of pleasure a wine provides regardless of age. a lot of the detractor's ignored several elements to the track record issue. The winemakers, the vinyards etc. The fact is--what specific attributes indicate or predict a wine's age worthiness are still a mystery. Well as any number of tasting notes--professional and otherwise--these wines seem to be doing quite well at 10 to fifteen years of age--where's the line of demarcation for "ages well."??? --no one actually drinks these wines--they are traded back and forth by speculators. Again I refer to the many tasting notes available on the internet. Sure there are collectors and speculators but an awful lot of folks have opened these wines up and drunk them. I should note that I have been lucky enough to have tasted many of these wines over several vintages since my encounter with the Colgin. I like some more than others. I tend to view each as an individual wine and judge each on its merits (or lack of merit). Are they worth the money? That is up to the individual. Is any wine worth the money? I can say that a lot of these wines; Harlan, Screaming Eagle, Colgin, Abreau etc are distinctive wines that deserve to be judged on what's in the glass and evaluated honestly. Unfortunately, there are some who let the politics of wine intrude. Anyway, I offer the following from James Suckling. Makes for interesting reading. I have joined the cult

I have some trouble digesting this debate. Seems we have one guy who believes we should go back to the nineteenth century in one corner and a guy who believes that a lobster is equal to a human being, in the other. Seriously, Pollan is a writer (I will avoid the debate as to his "journalistic" technique) who is contemplating our food supply and delivery and sharing his ruminations with us. Food for thought if you will. Mackey is certainly ripe for criticism. He is attempting to practice what he preaches. This is where I and he, have very real problems. My problem with Mackey is that he is not really selling food. He is selling a philosophy. Rather than trying to provide the best quality and tastiest food at good competitive prices, he is selling a moralistic point of view. He is selling production methods and provenance. It seems that reconciling all the criteria (none of which guarantees quality and flavor) to suit his moral and ethical stance, Mackey faces some real problems. That is stocking his shelves with produce that is ethically correct, from small, organic, local farms. ("Tasty" and "delicious" rarely seem to be used as an important criteria by Mr Mackey). Seems that all that criteria would be better met by a small, local, food shop or produce stand (read farmer's market) rather than a huge publicly traded operation. The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people. We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources. Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods. The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise. As for Whole Foods. They are reaching a point where they can not reconcile their philosophical raison d' etre with their fiscal responsibilities and the resultant volume growth. Something has to give. My guess is it will be the ethics!

Russ Thanks for injecting some sanity here. IMOP--the issue of production of food has been "hijacked" by those wishing to sell it to us and by those who have a political agenda--be it environmental or health. terms have been used by these entities to a degree that they have lost much of their original meaning. Organizations like the USDA have been misunderstood and criticized. Look at the angst over the grass fed issue and antibiotics etc. the reality does not warrant the hysteria. (it rarely does). My concern is that it is no longer about producing good food at reasonable prices. We should be celebrating quality--stuff that tastes good. We should be celebrating artisinal products and their producers who have achieved a level of excellence in producing, getting to market and selling high quality items for us to enjoy. The debates and discussions have lost any real perspective. There is no longer any common sense at play. How does one engage in rational discussion with someone who puts a lobster or a chicken on equal footing with a human being? Passion and emotion have taken over--witness the absurdity of the fois gras bans. Scientific evidence is ignored if it runs counter to your beliefs (it is too hard to change one's beliefs anymore) or touted if it supports your beliefs and theories. Food production is not so simple--neither are the issues. Last week I bought a couple of locally grown "heirloom" tomatoes that were basically tasteless. I went back to the store and purchased some perfectly round hot house tomatoes in a plastic container that were grown in Canada--while not optimum, these tomatoes were clearly more tasty and better. (and cheaper). In the end--I know what I like--flavor is what counts. I try to taste blind--to production techniques and political positions to confused terms like free range and grass fed--if it tastes good I will buy it. I will celebrate the people who produce and sell good tasting food!

I agree.. Now Chicago council is trying to ban the use of certain oils used in cooking.. And today The City Council passed a law that forces not only Wal-Mart, but Target, Costco and any other "big-box" merchant in the city, to pay employees $10 an hour. ← Here Here (and HERE!!!!). This is not just about the "restaurant industry." It is about government and its role in our lives period! There are a lot of zealots out there who want us to all live our lives their way. They want to save us from ourselves. We are lazy--too lazy to take responsibility for ourselves and our families so we prefer to let the government handle things for us. This is a sad state of affairs indeed!

Unfortunately, none of these names or designations has much to do with the actual taste of the item. They are selling the "sizzle" not the "steak." In fact, the vast majority of the tomatoes labeled "heirloom" that I have sampled are pretty bland and often tasteless. A tomato's genes seem to have less to do with flavor than the ripeness. Most every tomato I have eaten in California for eg--regardless of its heritage--was much better than any tomato I have had here in New York. (maybe a year round growing season has something to do with it). I have had myriad "branded" meats and poultry that are more provenance than flavor. Organic vs non organic? Nothing conclusive here either. Grass fed beef?--IMOP corn fed beef is generally more flavorful--simple. We are being sold on the romance and supposed health benefits not the flavor. What has happened is--we are losing sight of flavor and quality in favor of the "story" behind the food. Just as we have become label crazy in other areas--now its food labels. I am tiring of the "romance" of the local farmer we are sold constantly. A crappy tomato is a crappy tomato no matter where it is grown or who grows it or how it is grown. In a perfect world the "heirloom" tomato grown next door by an "organic" farmer using "biodynamic sustainable" farming techniques, plays Mozart in his fields, who attends church every Sunday and supports the local little league and is socially aware--would taste just heavenly. Unfortunately, it aint a perfect world!!!!

This sounds a bit like "Food 911" with Tyler Florence only with some more heart rending back story added. Also FYI-- I just heard that a spinoff of "Designing Blind" to be shot entirely in Italy and written by John Berendt is in the works--to be titled: "Venetian Blind."

Forgive me but often people within an industry often have difficulty seeing the forrest for the trees. As I see it--this is all about "big" and "small." First, this country thrives on an advocacy system. The WSWA is in existence to be an advocate for wholesalers and to protect their interests. as is usual in these organizations, it is the big guys who call the shots and have the most influence on the industry. So what else is new? Ms Duggan serves at the pleasure of the wholesalers who hired her. Questioning her morals is a bit naive. As any good attorney, she was an advocate for her clients. In the production and distribution of wine there are several entities: Wine Makers (wineries), distributors, retailers (shops, restaurants) and finally consumers. All these have their own special interests and all have organizations set up to represent those interests. There is one very important entity and that is the government. In theory it is the government that should balance the interests of all these entities fostering a system of production and distribution that works for all parties. (all parties vote). The problem is, all things are not equal. Additionally, the government itself has become its own vested interest in that it derives profits (via taxes) from the system. It is now more than just an arbiter, it is part of the system. In places like Pennsylvania, it has usurped the system completely taking over the physical distribution and sales. Small entities, wineries, will always have a hill to climb. We have three tier distribution of wine and spirits--we have the internet. We have laws. If a small producer has a good product then with some resourcefulness and smart marketing strategies, they should be able to get their product to enough consumers to make a profit. Entrepreneurs will always be able to work the system. Small distributors will emerge to provide services larger distributors can't or won't. There is far too much whining-- I can't believe that an industry where over a thousand wineries exist in the state of California alone and one that has seen people like Kermit Lynch and Neal Rosenthal and small distributors (Village Imports, House of Burgundy etc) and so many others find ways to bring interesting wines to the public can not continue to evolve and grow. If there is one over riding entity that can stifle this growth it is the government--federal and state. It is arcane laws and prohibitive rules and regulations and most of all taxes--sapping buying power from consumers, and punishing entrepreneurs. Focusing on small problems--the internet, boutique wineries and distributors, shipping charges, customer complaints about corked wine, who has influence over as trade group etc etc etc, is to lose sight of the big picture and big problems. So, the WSWA shouldn't be expected to become something it is not. I do believe that the industry needs more visionaries who see beyond the trees and can help guide all entities toward a better future.

I'm sure there are many people who think they're allergic, but aren't in actuality. And there are those who hide behind an "allergy", when they really just don't like a food or dish. Then there are people who don't have an actual allergy, but use that term because it's easier than explaining things further (case in point, a friend with celiac disease who would end up doubled in pain for days after the slightest amount of gluten usually just said he was allergic to wheat). Or people with sensitivities that make them uncomfortable after consuming a certain food - not an allergy, but something they need to avoid. It's almost impossible to know if someone is, in fact, allergic to something if they claim to be. But I'd certainly err on the side of caution instead of assuming that someone claiming a food allergy is either wrong or being less than honest. ← Most of the scientific evidence I have found indicates that about 25% of the population believes they have a food allergy. In actuality about 8% of adults have some real allergic reaction to foods. (sure the total numbers are nothing to scoff at but still we are a society of hypochondriacs). App 2% of children actually have food allergies. There is a lot of confusion and pure myth: Lactose intolerance for eg is not an allergy. There is little evidence to suggest that MSG causes bad reaction. Natural foods tend to cause more allergic reactions. IMOP--recent generations are way too sensitive in general. Sensitive and whiney ! Active imaginations and scare mongering by the press are to blame as well. There are a lot of "voodoo" merchants out there as well--a large chunk of the health food movement for eg. Food allergies are real (and can be very serious) but let's keep things in perspective!!!

I'd caution any food professional from adopting this point of view, or at least to the extent of blowing off a customer's comments about their allergies. I probably would have had similar thoughts to Jason's before having kids and watching "the next generation" struggle with food allergies. As for the "why", I'd ditto tejon's comments. It sucks as a consumer or a producer, or even as someone who just want to serve a kid a pb&j. Are some people lying or misinformed when they say they're allergic to a food? Sure. Are there people who are allergic (or have other health-threatening reactions) to cilantro, cucumbers, corn, MSG, nitrates, milk, nuts, whatever? Yup. ← Academy of Family Physicians on food allergies MSG Couple of helpful links. Facts are many more people think they have food allergies than actually have them. MSG--little evidence to support belief by many that MSG is a problem.

Political partisanship has nothing to do with this. Good writing and reporting is the only issue. Good writing and reporting come from all political angles. It is when any agenda (political, financial etc) gets in the way of good writing and reporting that there are problems. I fear that the Times put other things ahead of great Journalism and delivering a quality product.

It wasn't the "hiring" of Hesser. IMOP--it is the role she fills. She is not a good "critic." She is, however, much better as a general lifestyles writer covering food. With more "seasoning" she may develop a good critical sensibility. Her tone is often a bit too much--snippy, know it all, and I find her a tad obnoxious--but then when she attenuates that attitude a bit her writing is quite entertaining and good. An example is her piece on Emeril. It wasn't so much what she said--it was how she said it! She often lacks a sense of humor and graciousness. I know Mimi posts here--I would love to see her more often and given more free reign. Apple is near perfect. Matt and Ted are often quite good Bittman is also very fine. even Bruni is improving. Clearly the paper has lost its way--there is good talent there. There are also a lot of people who are given opportunities or elevated into positions they are just not ready for to further other agendas/ends. The paper is looking for "voices" often at the expense of good writing/reporting.

Ned: I believe this is a problem that runs far deeper and is far more complex than "what/who would we like to see/read in the food section." I would say this is more about the "raison d'etre" of not only the food section but the paper as a whole. It is rooted in leadership (or lack thereof) guiding the paper into a new era. Media consumption habits are rapidly changing. What does the Times want to be and how can it deliver in the face of these changing time. Maybe it is a problem with the "times changing and the changing of the Times." The writers are ok--there are some very fine writers on board. I would say there are fewer problems with the old guard--Apple, sheraton et al. The newer writers are ok as well though they tend to stumble more often. It is IMOP how all these writers are used or not used and what their roles are that is a possible problem. The Times food section needs to appeal to people in the tri state area but also the rest of the nation--a difficult balancing act. It needs be relevant. So--with the internet and Zagats and Gourmet and Food and Wine and the Food Network, and NY Magazine, many newsletters and thousands of web sites and food and wine blogs and....... What do they do? What would they do best? --if anything? Where is their niche? Years ago--people around the country could look to New York to see trends coming etc so what happened in NYC was important and interesting. This is no longer as true. The Times sees itself as a national publication but I wonder are they doing the best job they could and is this the mission? Or is this mission--one of excellence being undermined by other agendas? IMOP-the leadership under Pinch is a real problem. The priorities under him were skewed--they still are. Howell Raines was a disaster. A simple and compelling sports story (the Masters golf situation) becomes a mess, good writers look silly, the paper loses credibility. Same as l'affaire Hesser--she is a fine writer, yet she falls all over the place when assigned to review restaurants--she looks bad and --the paper loses credibility. There are some interesting and credible voices writing for the food section. But somewhere in the bowels of the paper there has to be a clearly defined mission and an atmosphere that makes the most of these writers talents and perspectives. it is IMOP important that a paper like a record company or a ball team --recognizes and obtains good talent and creates and manages an environment where that talent thrives.

Ah but which is the real work of art here--the "poetic" reflection by Beaumarchais or the wine that inspired it? Passion can be misplaced and misguided. Beaumarchais was making a brilliant observation holding a "greater truth." For someone to miss that truth and value a single specific bottle based upon it is misguided. Thus my point about context and perspective. A painter can be inspired by the mundane-- the everyday--a bowl of fruit. He/she can convey that inspiration sharing it with us and we can certainly appreciate that bowl of fruit in a new and different light, one that can enhance greatly our enjoyment of the fruit. However--the painting is the art, the bowl of fruit is -------a bowl of fruit! So the painting will possibly sell for a lot of money and the bowl of fruit will be worth the going rate for apples and oranges and pottery. Unless of course that bowl is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity declaring it to be " the actual bowl of fruit as seen in the painting by Chagall!" (in which case the fruit may sell for more than the painting--on QVC of course!).

I disagree on the "Cirque" review--this is worthy of a page one in the food section given its place in history. Newspapers are all wrestling with the fact that times are changing. newspapers are simply not as important as resources anymore. IMOP the Times is gradually morphing into USA Today for intellectuals.

Yours is a "healthy" approach that employs some common sense and perspective. I agree. Let me go a step further. The analogy comparing wine to art is misguided. I will qualify this and say "fine arts." One has to stretch the language and definitions to apply the fine arts analogy to wine. Wine is first and foremost a beverage. It has a clearly defined purpose a, utility. For many different reasons--some wines are "better" than others. Those who rail against scoring or rating wines are mostly in self denial--these folks, for the most part, are responsible for elevating wine well beyond its proper context. They ignore the fact that art, fine and otherwise is and has been "rated" and evaluated for centuries. It seems to me that we as a society are constantly searching for things to "prize." It started with stamps and coins and now 1950's kitsch like metal lunch pails and "vintage" tupperwear containers are now "collected" and valued/prized. To compare things with a symphony or a painting or poetry is to lose all sense of perspective and context. To say that a wine is "poetic" is fine if one realizes the hyperbole at play. Unfortunately, I believe, we often do not and take this exaggeration far too seriously. The Mouton labels are conceived with a purpose designed to "elevate" their wines from others. To take the implication too literally is a mistake. Wine is made to be drunk. It is a result of craftsmanship. It can be artisinal. Winemakers are not artists in the sense that Picasso is an artist any more than someone who makes fine ashtrays from pottery or metal is comparable to Rodin. I fear we often devalue fine artists in our attempts to value everyday items. I offer an anecdote as an example of someone who quite possibly understands wine and perspective and context: (I have forgotten some details/specifics) Years ago the Four seasons restaurant purchased a bottle of wine (a magnum I believe) for an astronomical sum (say $50,000.00 or maybe even $100K)--a huge investment. It was one of those heralded wines from the distant past--like those Margaux's or Lafittes from the 1700's owned by Thomas Jefferson that pass from collector to collector growing exponentially in value with each. At the "unveiling" at the restaurant with a large contingency of press the owner of the restaurant somehow dropped the bottle and it broke in many pieces! The press and the wine world were aghast. It has long been suspected that the owner (a brilliant promoter) intentionally "dropped" the bottle. Knowing that the "wine" inside was surely undrinkable he received millions of dollars in publicity for the restaurant for his, now relatively, "small" investment. drink for thought......

maybe a "cuppage fee" or a "liddage fee" You make an interesting point. I believe that Starbucks has opened up coffee related beverages to a wider audience. they are in competition with sweet shoppes and ice cream parlors as well as coffee outlets--deli's etc. I also believe they have raised the level of overall mediocrity for coffee drinkers. Most of those "coffee shops" and diners etc served pretty lousy coffee. starbuck's is a step up for sure. Real aficionados of espresso could always turn to the few specialty outlets. Most would agree that the roasts Starbuck's employs are too dark for their basic coffee. Interestingly, not long ago I read criticisms of Zabar's and Citarella etc for roasting their coffees too LIGHTLY!

Ya know--I would like to shave something other than some inexpensive pecorino over my pasta once in a while but all you effete, truffle eating snobs have made the cost of that go way outta proportion to what is really a golfball sized fungus!!!! Yeah--it all Parker's fault--gee you don't need binoculars to see this coming from you people. It's Parker. It's the rich. It's people who just display the wine. It's people who drink it but don't appreciate it like you do. It's Japanese business men who fill their pools with it. It is Russian mafia who spike their borscht with it and pour over their kobe beef. Really, if the rich behaved the way you guys say they do, it's hard to see how they became rich in the first place. (given they are the shallow fashion driven, free spending fools you say they are). oh--they inherited it!!!!! yeah that's it! someone gave em all that money to waste!!! and all those rich folks only listen to Parker or they hire wine consultants who are too young to really appreciate wine anyway. If only Parker would say--don't buy these wines unless you are worthy-- or better-- if only he would go away and then the rich would lose interest and be lost--they wouldn't know which wines to buy, who would tell them what to like???? and Margaux would be fifty dollars a bottle!!! And only those really "in the know" those of us who truly appreciate these works of art those of us who have the right level of true passion and devotion--will drink them. The world will make sense!!! All will be right and good!!! Yeow! now do you folks really deserve those hundred dollar shoes you are wearing? (sorry--I guess it's probably simple sandles to go with the sack cloth and ashes) let's stop complaining and start drinking! There's a hell of a lot of really nice wines for prices we can all afford!

Any country is fair game for criticism. No country can be held up as a model. What is missing from this piece is any sense of humor. Poking fun can be entertaining and informative. However there is an undertone of pure nastiness in this piece. One could respond with an equally nasty critique of European countries (believe me there's plenty of ammunition). That would be sinking to the level of the writer of this piece. The writer driven by what? Anger, envy, some personal psychosis?-- uses half truths and stereotype to make a case for what? The nonsense about wines for eg is misinformed and idiotic. Ditto the claptrap about our driving laws and habits. What about coffee? The real motivation for this piece is not any qualms with culture it is entirely motivated by politics! Uninformed and misguided political viewpoint. And therein lies the real problem with this bit of America bashing. The writer, if capable, could present his or her political viewpoint for consideration or debate (with or without humor). Instead, frustrated at the obvious inability to make a "case" --they resort to blaming our culture or lack thereof. (if only "they" knew how to appreciate a good cup of coffee--the world would be a better place. The piece ends with some pure drivel about "America's encounter with Islam." So Given the political nature of the piece, I submit it is silly and wrong to try to address the comments about food and culture--it is to miss the point of the piece. One can argue any political point of view--Americans do love a good debate. The writer is an intellectual coward who has developed a dishonest theory to support a politically motivated position. Perhaps an appropriate response to this piece would be to look at jellied eel and Benny Hill (British culture?) to explain away all of Britain's ills and bad behaviour. I can't do it though--I love Benny Hill (the eel is another matter).

First question: Even if what you are saying is true--how do you determine if anyone who buys these wines "appreciates" them? Are you saying that anyone who is wealthy enough to afford first growth Bordeaux is ergo, incapable of " appreciating" the wine? How do you know this? Second question: Are you also saying that anyone who avails themselves of a wine consultant is somehow not worthy of the wines they purchase? That the advice from a 32 year old (your noting the age is troubling) is less valid then the advice anyone offers regarding the purchase of fine wine? Or are you saying that anyone who uses any advice-- paid or not-- in purchasing wine is somehow unworthy/incapable of appreciating that wine? So by your calculation some 90,000 cases of first growth Bordeaux is mostly being purchased by people who do not/can not appreciate these wines? How do you define "appreciate?" Also one must believe that these people are drinking something they don't like? They do it for what--status? This is all a bit bewildering. Should one be required to take some sort of test before they are allowed to purchase fine wines (any wine)? Does one need to prove their worthiness? To whom? I gotta say--a lot of this thinking is pretty snarky! The hell with boycotts! Let's just kill the rich!!! Then the wine will be ours! All ours!!! Nya Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!! Let the revolution begin!!!!!

I'm sorry. None of this makes any sense. It is a wonderful parody though!!! The whole theory is contradictory. Even if it did, how have you identified these people? Even if you could, how many of them are there? No one who is "passionate" about wine would be likely to engage in this silliness. (amazing how those "yuppies" now "uber-yuppies" are to blame for the price of Bordeaux now!) I thought they were all shopping in Whole Foods now! What many people do-is buy a lot of fine wine then sell off a portion to fund more purchases. In the end, when someone buys anything they own it and can use it as they see fit. The fact is, no one knows what happens to wine after it has been purchased. Why speculate? The reason some wines are expensive is mostly explained by simple basic economics. The theories about nefarious groups of the unworthy or barbarians causing high prices is nothing more than sour grapes. Fine and rare wines will always be trophies. They will be drunk, cellared, traded, sold again......maybe even used in spritzers or swimming pools! The web is rife with tasting notes for these wines so obviously a lot of them are being drunk. The good news is there are plenty of wines at all price levels for all budgets (and purposes). I'd rather enjoy what I can buy and than grouse over the price of tea in China! In the end--what's the point?

Prices are "set" by the chateau. "Collectors" whoever they are--do not set prices. After the initial offering by the chateau (based in part upon what they believe they can get for the wines) the other tiers involved add their markups. FYI-auction prices are set mostly by the auction houses. Also FYI--many collectors often sell off much of their collections via auction when they realize they have more than they can consume in their lifetimes. Along with the restaurant trade collectors are responsible for the availability of older vintages of well cellared wines for us to enjoy. (many at very reasonable prices). I suggest you look over the offerings at the various auction houses--you will be amazed at how many relative bargains there are. And: Many so called "collectors" are people of modest means who are passionate about wine and spend a large part of their disposable income on their hobby.