JohnL

I think we are focusing on the value/cost part of this too much. The real problem is seems today there is no differentiation between a snack and a meal. At some point people started to believe that they could have a full course meal in their seat. (maybe the habits developed watching TV and eating dinner at the same time). One could always sneak a bag or box of candy in --in face of high theatre prices. but--folks started bringing in sandwiches and then foods like chicken and ribs and.... With everything out of control the theaters probably figured they better get in on the scene and profit. Let's remember once--people were better mannered and those that weren't were flushed out by the dreaded--movie house matrons! Nothing like a flashlight beam in one's face to get an offenders attention! Johnny Carson told a story once about being in a movie and on screen there was a knock at a door. A woman seated behind him loudly asked "I wonder who that could be?"

We really need some "torte" reform!

I rarely go out to the movies these days. Long ago--food in movies meant popcorn and various candies. Then came the hot dogs (ok not too bad) soon to be followed by all manner of fast foods. Now it seems every theatre is "dinner theatre." Ok so the stuff available in the theatres is over priced--this is the least of the problem. It is now common to see people not "snacking" but having a full meal in their seats. The smell the noise! The obnoxious behavior--basically theatres decided they couldn't stop people from sneaking food in--I remember seeing Raiders of the Lost Arc back when the theatre offered only popcorn candy and maybe hot dogs. A family sat behind us and unfoiled a barbeque rib dinner when the lights went down. The smell and the slurping --not to talk about the sound of bones hitting the floor were too much! So now--rather than beat em the movie theatres are joining them offering all manner of items at the counters in the lobby. I mostly stay home--netflicks and Blockbuster in my living room are preferable to the once pleasurable communal experience of going out to a movie.

Sounds pretty good. I also believe that Pinot Noir is probably the single most versatile red wine for food pairing. key factor is the type of Pinot. This dish is definitely made for a vibrant young pinot with some richness. let us know how it worked fore you!

← First--the article is well written and does a pretty good job recapping the current state of affairs. Comiskey is himself, a good writer in the wine world. My two cents: Comiskey left out a very fine site (IMOP): The Wine Spectator's. This could be because he is an editor (I believe) at Wine and Spirits Magazine. He did not include any magazine sites. As for your pop quiz: One could ask the question about this quote: ".... at 9,000 members, 77,000 threads and posts approaching one million, it is by far the most far flung and heavily trafficked wine bulletin board in the ether. You'll find winemakers, sommeliers and serious aficionados making regular posts." Yes Comiskey is right on with the additional quote--combined the two present a fairly accurate description of Parker's bulletin board. At this juncture--I would point out that I have never posted on Parker's board--I do subscribe to the Wine Advocate as well as --Jancis Robinson's site, Tanzer, Burghound, Wine Spectator and numerous other journals and magazines. I have a bit of an issue with Comiskey's assessment of Jancis Robinson. I have mixed feelings about her. She is knowledgeable but is she really the "preeminent English language wine journalist at the moment?" She can very good--she is a good writer--but she also has an annoying (to me) habit of tossing snarky comments without any explanation into her prose (and notes). She often revels in spreading gossip and uses coyness and indirectness to prevent anyone from challenging her views. she is a master of implications and insinuation. OK she is "cheeky." As for her tasting notes, again, when they are good they are very good but she also can be imprecise and vague behind a glib prose style. She most definitely can be fun to read though. Mr Comiskey seems to be dazzled with her MW (lot's of folks have edited wine encyclopedias) and her style. i feel she often hides behind her credentials. To me there is less there than meets the eye. Lastly, I have recently discovered Daniel Rogov's site. (a nice benefit of eGullet). He posts here frequently and I have found few writers as erudite and knowledgeable in not just wine but a wide variety of topics. His tasting notes are remarkable for their precision and discipline. I would recommend that anyone interested in wine give him a try!

John, you are definitely not making too much of your Johnny's experience. Having grown up in Mount Vernon, the standard that I measure any pizza against is Johnny's. It is great to finally see them get some well deserved recognition outside of Mount Vernon. Johnny's pizza is so good it's addictive. I remember once in my younger days, my cousin Sal and I actually had lunch there 5 days in a row. When we walked in on the 5th day, Johnny (who is no longer with us) threw his hands up in the air and yelled, "Is that all you guys eat, Pizza!?" Back then Johnny's was known for it's "soup nazi" type atmosphere almost as much as it's pizza. Since I live in Connecticut now, it has been a while since I have had Johnny's, and this thread has given me a hankering. Next time I go down to visit my parents I will have to make time to stop there. As far as a couple of the other NY area Pizzas mentioned here, Lombardi's is excellent, but I must say I was very disappointed with Grimaldi's. I was only there once and maybe I caught them on an off night, but the crust was limp and undercooked. ← Thanks Phil! I heard about Johnny's on the Bronx Board web site. There was a thread about the old Half Moon and someone mentioned Johnny's. I must admit--I had never heard of them before--I lived in the Bronx (Arthur Avenue and Fordham Hill) as well as Westchester--New Rochelle and White Plains. I can't believe I missed them! Anyway--I definitely believe that Johnny's is worth a trip--this is pizza that stands above the everyday (even good everyday) neighborhood pie. There does seem to be a following (albeit small and rabid) but they seem to be just under the radar.

← Actually, IMOP, the Slate piece gets it "wrong." What we seem to have here is a case of journalistic "debunking" gone amok! The slate reporter seems intent upon going after the New Scientist (that headline really seems to irk him). Unfortunately, the writer contradicts himself in the very quote used above. "All eight wines suffered a noticeable decrease in the intensity of their aromas and flavors on account of the cheeses." After that conclusion, who cares about the accuracy of the New Scientist Headline? What wine lover would not be concerned that "well the cheeses diminished the wines aromas and flavors." and then consoled with: "but hey I can still tell that the wine is not rot gut."???? Food and wine pairings should follow a simple rule: "first do no harm." In my experience there are few cases where the food and wine work together to create an experience where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. So most successful pairings involve one item (either the wine or the food) complementing the other. One tends to shine a bit more than the other. Basically, they work together. All these studies seem to be indicating is what many (myself included) have discovered through our own experiences. that is many cheeses (not all) have a tendency to "dull" the palate to the nuances of a fine red wine. In most cases the cheese dominates the wine somewhat. So, I believe that it is perfectly fine to drink a red wine with cheese but the optimum red wine is usually a wine that has something going for it to prevent the cheese from overwhelming it. Like --high acidity, residual sweetness, intense fruitiness, high alcohol etc etc etc. Wines most call "rustic" seem to do better with cheese. If I have a fine, subtle and complex red wine I avoid drinking it with most cheeses. I think that this is all the study indicates and there are many folks who would agree. As always, most people should try different wines with different cheeses and decide for themselves what works and what doesn't. And, as usual, the press tends to "overheat" and confuse most issues. The journalists would be advised to do just a tiny bit of background research before they start their "debunking."

I know... as I noted upthread, I can't believe the brassiness with which "Bastali" are going about this. They sure have made their point - almost throwing a gauntlet at Bruni, if not in the press, definitely through that one Food Network special feature! Odd advertising campaign... I feel already, as a potential customer, almost as if I'm just the side-show to this whole enterprise - that restaurant was really just built for the NY Times... u.e. ← Sorry--I missed your earlier post. I agree! Bastali are doing a few things here. One-they are making an unabashed case for their four stars. Not just to the Times but to the world (just in case Bruni doesn't come through). They are hedging their 10 million dollar bet! I also can't help but think that the Times and Bruni have actually encouraged this --at the very least they have given Bastali the feeling that they can pull this off in this manner. (I still hold that Bruni should never have put his name on the Del Posto piece that ran on the front page of the food section thus becoming part of the Del Posto publicity machine.

Del Posto (NYMetro) See also: New restaurants from the Fall Preview issue of New York Magazine ← They did more than admit it! This past weekend I caught a "special" on the Food Channel featuring the "making of Del Posto" as well as covering Batali and all his projects--cook wear, cook book and restaurant empire. Aside from the will they ever open on time and can mario juggle all his projects and still get four stars plot line, the show was of some interest a la -- complicated restaurant project gets off the ground. Mario and Joe Bastianich come right out and say they are looking for four stars--more than once. There is even a scene (after the opening of the restaurant) where they wait breathlessly for Frank Bruni to walk through the front door. (he is 'rumored" to be visiting that night). The program closes with a title card indicating that as of the date of the special program "Frank Bruni has yet to review Del Posto." During the program Mario tells us that it is near impossible for an Italian restaurant to get four stars because people (critics) think the food is too "simple" not complex enough. There is an effort in the piece to show how the dishes are being devised--with complexity (suprise) and the best ingredients. I can not imagine anyone doing this during Reichl's tenure-or Claiborn (in all fairness there was no food network). I can't help but think that IMOP--Mario and Joe made a primer for Bruni so he knows what they are doing and why--just a little help--"see Frank, here's why we are deserving of four stars!--now we can't write the review for you (or can we?!) so here's a little help. yeeeeeesh!

Thanks Pan! I really would not have learned much about this awful situation were it not for eGullet. We rarely look into the whole situation in these things--the issue of slavery in Chocolate production is very complex. I am sure that civil war is part of this situation--any upheaval can promulgate practices like slavery.) Regardless of all the complexities--what I keep coming back to is the horrific cruelty (how human beings can treat each other). Let's hope that enough of us act responsibly here and help those who are trying to eradicate the child slavery problem.

Do you enjoy cheese while you are drinking wine? Does this article confirm your own feelings? ← so a conclusion of the study as stated by the Slate author is: "all eight wines suffered a noticeable decrease in the intensity of their aromas and flavors on account of the cheeses....." yet this brilliant journalist concludes: "the study does not conclude that red wine and cheese are incompatible," I can't wait for the article proudly announcing: "Slate Journalist misreads the press' misreading of a study that concludes....." Here's my take on the red wine and cheese issue (I posted this on the thread referenced by Brad). The high fat content in cheese can "dull" the palate to the nuances of many fine red wines. This belief is the result of eating a lot of cheeses with a lot of red wines. (I came to this conclusion on my own based upon my own experience--everyone should form their own opinions). This opinion--by the way--is held by many people who are more experienced and authoritative than I am. There are also a number of equally respected folks who disagree. (you really have to form your own opinion here). The science seemingly supports the first group--but so what? (I am certainly not going to try to convince someone like Daniel Rogov that he is wrong to tout red wines with cheese). Red wines that are not so nuanced and that may be less than optimally balanced do a better job with fatty cheeses. Amarones (high alcohol) or sweet reds--ports etc (high sugar) can work with cheese. Also simpler more 'rustic" reds are ok as well--IMOP. A fine red Burgundy IMOP (say a great Musigny--will be "lessened" when drunk with a strong cheese--the cheese wins every time! Most people will agree that white wines and sweet wines work much better with a wider range of cheeses (I especially love fresh goat cheeses with chenin blancs and Sancerre's from the Loire). Also--why must one force the issue--dry red and white wine does not work best with every food--we often overlook great beers and ales for example and fortified wines like--sherries etc etc etc.. As for the press--obviously they are clueless (stumbling over each other in pursuit of a story that really is not much to begin with).

My wife and I visit Nantucket every year. On an Island with many fine restaurants our favorite over the past several years has been "Sfoglia" the food and experience is very rustic Italian --truly great pasta and country cooking. A favorite dish of ours is Sweet sausages with stone fruits. Interesting affordable wines from all over italy. Amazingly good bread and deserts. Owners Ron and Colleen Suhanofsky are opening Sfoglia in NYC on February 25th. Lexington Ave and 92nd Street Both are CIA grads--Ron has cooked here at River cafe and Park Avenue Cafe and Il Buco and in Boston at Alloro and Galleria Italiano as well as extensive experience in Italy. Colleen handles baking and deserts--she has experience at Biba in Boston and Italy as well as Gramercy Tavern. I have had some incredible deserts at Sfoglia and the bread is as good as it gets. Anyway--I am sounding like a publicist here-really I am just a big fan--and hope that they do as well here in NYC--they are nice people. In the end the proof will be in the pudding (or in this case the pasta).

As I see it, this thread started out about slavery and the production of cocoa/chocolate. What we have discovered is that there is some slavery involved in the production of cocoa. It is also pretty clear that an effort to eliminate this slavery is already underway and we as consumers can impact this issue positively by buying chocolate/cocoa from producers who do not benefit from the slavery and conversely avoid purchasing this product from the offenders. IMOP--this is the "truth" of this thread. I discovered a very good analysis of the cocoa problem--the key to finding a solution to a problem is understanding that problem. There is also a good review of what is currently being done to solve this problem. The causes discussed are wide ranging: governmental, cultural, economic, agricultural etc. Chocolate and slavery- an analysis Agonizing over righting the wrongs of the past and debating economics is an academic exercise that while interesting is really useless in solving a serious problem. . The real shame is that it is still practiced today--estimates are 700,000 people are suffering in slavery--the UN terms it "clandestine slavery." We can do our part to help the children in the Ivory Coast

Ok I did it for you! Now I am totally confused! I suppose we could now debate the meaning of "Critic's Notebook" and "Diner's Journal" it's just that I am really hesitant to engage in (or worse--- possibly invent) "Culinary Semiotics" I am too busy worrying about my teflon intake! (can't wait for the warning label on the menus: caution some of the items on this menu have been cooked in teflon pans. Teflon has been.....) Life is getting just too complicated! anyway-- I just don't want to take this Bruni thing too seriously. There are lots of places to find out about restaurants these days. (by the way I wonder if Bruni and or all those dining pals of his participate in the Zagat's surveys?) Just a thought!

I think the key here is: the government is on the case. The scientists are investigating things. The industry is on notice and looking at things as well. All in all, seems there is cause for some awareness and maybe some concern but no cause for alarm or panic. (I still like the way my teflon pan works and will continue to use it)

I find this a little odd. I as well as others from the "Steak at home" thread, like to sear steaks on pretty high heat. Do you, All Clad users, have to change your style of cooking? Do you stir fry on low to medium heat? Any of you use All Clad on electric stove tops? What is the highest setting do you subject your frying pans to? I already read Sam Slinky's lecture. Great study but does not address this subject. ← I wish I had a better background in science but.... A question: Is there a limit as to how hot a pan (or any surface) can get? if so--once reaching that temperature--then will increased heat source applied to that surface cause a problem? Is this All Clad "thing" due to more than a concern with esthetics?

That's always open to question, no matter what the issue is. I agree that each individual has a limited impact on the World, but there are enough instances of one person doing a tremendous amount of good or harm for it to be evident that a single human being can make a big difference. I don't think the question of paid child labor or children helping with family farms or businesses is as clear cut as you're making it, though. ← I agree. Freedom (the opposite of slavery) wins out most every time. We have freedom to express thoughts and ideas and to receive and exchange and challenge information. Take this eGullet thread. Because of freedom we (and by "we" I mean many many free countries) have an economically powerful market that buys a lot of chocolate thus we have many companies who produce chocolate from many sources. We are free to buy chocolate from anyone of these. We can thus --having been informed about a possible injustice--individually--or collectively (really a collective is a number if individuals anyway one looks at it) and impact the market and thus the production practices. (one hopes). So we can split hairs over definitions and agonize about the past and past injustices but that is really just academic and doesn't really get us anywhere in today's real world. We can quibble over who did what to whom or we can move forward. I opt for the latter!

Perhaps one of the historians here can provide some further color, but the weekly "Diner's Journal" column has long been used for—among other things—previewing restaurants that will later receive rated reviews. It is part of the system that Frank Bruni inherited, and I don't recall anyone else having such a big problem with it.What purpose does it serve? Well, it simply increases the amount of coverage provided to those restaurants. Whether he chooses the right restaurants at the right time is a matter of critical judgment, but I fail to see how additional information could be viewed as a liability. Historically, previews of restaurants that would receive full reviews shortly thereafter have been a minority of the Diner's Journal columns. I suspect his blog will continue this practice. His lead-off post suggested that he will mostly be blogging about restaurants he has no immediate plans to formally review. This presupposes that the formal reviews are a "complete" opinion. Although they occupy more space than a Diner's Journal column, a formal review is still only a snapshot—a momentary utterance in the ongoing public conversation about these restaurants. I don't understand the "gossip" comment at all. Whatever flaws Frank Bruni's writing may have, his reviews are not gossip. ← I don't think we would be discussing or debating the "role" of the Blog or the Diner's Journal were there not problems with Mr Bruni's work. IMOP you are giving the formal reviews import short shrift. A formal review should carry some considerable weight with the readership. It should be the assessment of a restaurant based upon many visits and a sampling of a wide range of the food offered. The critical assessments should be supported in the review--it should all come together and make sense for the reader. The Diner's Journal column is seemingly whatever the paper or Bruni wants it to be. Fair enough. I have no problem in Bruni alerting us to restaurants that he will not be reviewing formally or possibly will be reviewing fully in the distant future. However, major restaurants that warrant a full review are IMOP short changed (as are we the readers) because of the limitations of the column size especially if the critic is going to make some negative criticisms. Thus without proper context and support we get a "mini" pre review that if, in and of itself, is not gossip--will certainly promote gossip. IMOP much of this comes down to how the paper envisions its critics' roles. The fact is--whatever the paper is doing recently, they are in trouble--we can debate this certainly--I strongly believe that whatever the paper does tactically--they must provide good accurate information from people who are authoritative and whose opinions count, in an entertaining manner. A critic should be an important person with important views. When the Paper devalues their critics and their criticism, they will lose impact and importance and ultimately their audience. When there was a "buzz" building about Gilt (I think we would agree this is an important restaurant opening) we should have been "waiting to see what the Times critic says" that critic being the authoritative voice. Instead Bruni couldn't seem to wait--he had to get that Diner's Journal piece on restaurant pricing practices out post haste and in the process contributed to the "buzz." IMOP-this devalued his review somewhat--there is no reason IMOP that bruni could have reviewed Gilt--mentioned the pricing and then used the restaurant to make a case about pricing practices in the Diner's Journal piece--it is all in the timing.

Try the parking lot or area around an arena or stadium after a sporting event here in NY area. The guys with the soft pretzels seem to be out in force--around the garden after the knicks or rangers games, the meadowlands parking lot etc. also--I have been battling an addiction to "Auntie Annies" pretzels for some time. I got hooked at the Pittsburgh airport (the US Air terminal) and have--to my dismay--discovered em from Chicago to NY.--this is IMOP--one of the most insidious operations anywhere--their goal seems to be getting innocent people hooked on their utterly vile product! Imagine providing a soft pretzel answer to what's for dinner? (or any other time of day or night) via appetizer--main course and desert!--a desert pretzel--are we that close to the first circle of hell?

Why does a critic need a forum for "pre reviewing"a restaurant? What purpose does this serve--either him or her (the critic) and us--the public? For that matter--what is the purpose of pre reviewing a restaurant? Should the restaurant critic of a major (or minor for that matter) newspaper indulge in incomplete opinion or gossip regarding a restaurant for which he or she is preparing a formal review? Also-I have no problem with a "blog" or Diner's journal column--I do have a problem with a lack of discipline in the important formal restaurant reviews.

While I think he over-relies on quotes from his friends, I've never doubted that some friend or other actually said what is attributed to them. What makes you believe otherwise? ← With all due respect (as they say on the Sopranos).--who cares.? I am looking for a level of comfort, of trust with Bruni. Also some consistency. Am I getting concise accurate appraisals of restaurants? That is all a critic need provide. Is he providing a good description of the atmosphere, food and service? Does he provide any additional perspective--based upon his experiences, his palate etc? Do we trust his reviews (judgements) to establish a restaurant's place in New York's (and the world's) restaurant hierarchy? As for the blog--is it a good idea to provide "previews" into his formal reviews? Why is this necessary--what is the point--why not just publish a formal review?--are not observations based upon incomplete information/experience--reflective of that incompleteness? Is the blog adding any insight into dining? really--based on the initial blogs--what have we learned that we didn't already know?

You are lost in the past. I would respectfully suggest that you focus on one thing and one thing only. Slavery is wrong--agreed? Let's also remove the current price of coffee from the debate (for at least a moment--as well as the price of tea in China). Fair wages and slavery are incongruent --slavery means "work for no wages--the meaning according to Webster is :"a person held in servitude as property." If people involved in any enterprise fit under that definition--then it is abhorrent and no one should morally or financially support that enterprise. You may, in fact, be on to something when you refer to minimum wages--that is another topic requiring another set of facts. The basic question I have in reference to the production of chocolate (cocoa) is: Is anyone involved in this process a slave--as defined by Webster? After that simple answer--we can move forward.

Our "quality of life" is not the result of a zero sum game. It is based upon our having basic freedom. I do not accept that one man's freedom must mean another is not free. The slavery issue is very important--the very fact that it still exists is unacceptable. Our sins are in the past--we have moved beyond them. This has no bearing on condemnation of this activity--what is wrong is wrong. However--as is often the case with these things (see foie gras/animal rights etc.) it is difficult to get good accurate information. The Times piece is of little use--in fact--the slavery issue is dropped in an almost offhand manner. What exactly is involved in the production of chocolate is important if one is going to be critical. We often do "project" our own values on situations where we lack any real insight into the issue at hand. So--I for one, would like to learn a bit more about how chocolate is produced before I form any opinions and certainly before I stop buying chocolate. I am a bit skeptical of claims made by any group--the Fair Market folks have an altruistic purpose--I am not sure I would agree with their definition of "fair market." They are pointing the finger at the chocolate business and using a very charged term--"slavery." It would be nice to get some information from a source that has no agenda. By the way, I have no quibble with the Fair Market folks--I would simply like some more information before I condemn an industry. In the end--slavery is abhorrent--no society should allow it or make excuses for not acting to abolish it. If, in fact, chocolate is produced by a system of slavery then it is morally wrong to buy it.

Your photography is makin me---Hungry!!! As also mentioned in the Garbage plate thread--this is really a variation on the "French Dip" theme. The big difference is the roll--I prefer "weck." I have seen caraway and coarse salt on dinner rolls here in NYC (mainly in an elongated roll that seems like a cross between a bread stick and a traditional dinner roll. This brings me to my point--in most every sandwich the key ingredient is the BREAD! Here the French Dip is elevated by the use of the "weck." Not only does this unique roll add complexity--salt and caraway--but the "lightness" you refer to. Many times I have seen attempts to replicate a regional sandwich fail mainly because of the bread. For eg--it is near impossible to get a fair rendition of a Philadelphia Hoagie anywhere outside the Philly area mainly because the bread. Here in NYC we have "heros" "wedges" etc all of which fail IMOP against the Hoagie--the bread here is too dense! Same for the muffaletta--most copies use bread that is dense and not airy like you get in N.O. area.--It ain't just the flavors--it is the consistency! So too the "weck" relies on a special bread to make this sandwich something really special. Simple! (y'ad think)

I beg to differ. There is an over-use of hackneyed phrases ("xyz on steroids," "a tangle of pasta") and an inability to get to the point (3-4 paragraphs of euphemisms to explain that the seating at a restaurant is comfortable—a "massage of a restaurant"). I wonder how much of Bruni's oeuvre Ms. Waxman has sampled, and whether she has any other knowledge of the restaurants besides what Bruni says about them. ← First, Ms Waxman appears to be a much better writer than Bruni, I have no idea what possessed her to write to the editor of the Times praising Bruni. Second, I agree that Bruni is not a very good writer. His attempts at humor are strained, awkward and often out of place. (the bugs bunny references). He also has a habit of using somewhat obscure references to make a point. (the Kubrickean decor citations). This is an all too common method of "showing off" a la Dennis Miller (Dennis is good--this is his schtick). We do not need "schtick" in journalism--restaurant review etc. if it gets in the way of clarity. The real problem is Bruni is too obvious--one should not "see" the technique, the method. In the Gilt review for eg, Bruni leaves out important information to score points for his thesis. (the tea/wine thing and the two part menu). He complains about the servers explanations about the rationale behind the dishes (actually his "companions" seem to complain more) then makes the point that the dishes do not make sense. I waited in agony for Bruni to explain what some of the dishes were all about and then to tell us if the chef succeeded--but I guess Bruni didn't listen! from the very start of the review of Gilt--Bruni shows his hand--his hook is established. any information that deviates from that hook is ignored or short changed--one can not trust Bruni. In short--we have to go elsewhere to get a better sense of what is happening at Gilt--New York, The Post, on line--I have read some reviews on line that talk about the wine list in minimal detail--far more than Bruni offers--that indicate it is at least interesting. His take on the wine at Gilt is "too expensive" so "why talk about it"--that's it. A restaurant review is about communication--describing the experience one can expect in terms of food and beverages, and service and atmosphere and providing some context--writing is about communicating clearly. Bruni fails on both points with the Gilt review--IMOP (of course)