JohnL

German and Scandanavian and British cuisines are "bad"? French and "Arab" cuisines good? (by the way--which "Arab" food are you talking about?--Moroccan, Algerian? what the Sheiks in Saudi Arabia are eating?) Really--Is this thread loaded with generalization and stereotyping or what?! First-I agree that the whole premise of this thread is faulty--Gourmet Magazine and the notion that a few "elites" are determining the parameters and direction of cuisine in this country etc. also--the whole notion of what "average" folks eat in this country and the idea that one can make a comparison between Thailand and America in this regard is impossible. not only are our respective histories unique and different but the sheer size--geographically etc. belies comparisons. even more alarming is an attempt by some posters to make "spiritual" comparisons--I won't even go there. Also the idea that the cuisine of Thailand being "set in stone" or not evolving is unbelieveable. I am no expert in Thai cuisine but the influences and roots in Indian and Chinese cuisines is well documented. America is a very large country geographically with a hugely diverse population from native Americans to recent arrivals from all sorts of countries. I would find it hard to define just what American cuisine is. --value judgements aside--is cajun or creole cooking in our delta any more "American" than the cooking of Vietnamese Americans in Minneapolis or the cooking one finds in New England or what native Americans cook and eat? (and remember "Native American" is a generalization too--what tribe would we be talking about? ). How about the Italian American food one finds in the Bronx? Or the many permutations of cuisines one finds all over the country like skyline chillie (or is it spaghetti?) in Ohio? --scrapple and soft pretzels in Pennsylvania-- sirloin tips in Santa Barbara? barbeque (and just what type of barbeque would we be talkin?--from Argentinian to Memphis to Texas). Low country cuisine of South Carolina? Brunswick Stew? French? Midwestern cooking (whatever that is--we have everyone from greek Americans to Arab Americans in large numbers there Greeks too and....). Is it what Alice Waters has been cooking? Bobby Flay and Mark Miller? Is it Southwest cuisine? Is it Jewish deli or cous cous or Hungarian? Oh yes--Thai food--I am ordering some delivered tonite! I would say that as opposed to some small group of elites at Gourmet (or here at eGullet) the biggest influence on where American cuisine has been and is going are the waves of people who come here (and will be coming here)--its in our history! As for what rich and poor eat--I would argue it is just as difficult generalizing here as it is determining what American food is? And as wrongheaded to assume that in Thailand there are no wealthy and poor (and in betweens). In fact--history indicates there have been "cuisines" for the rich and privileged and poor peoples from the beginning of time.--Haute Cuisine to Moghul cuisine to Mandarin etc etc etc. Why even in former socialist and communist countries the politburo and the party regulars arguably ate a lot differently than the general populace! (so did the czars and Kings they replaced). Anyway--there is a potentially fascinating discussion here somewhere if we could dispense with the stereotyping and generalization and political agenda.

Delamain P and D is one of my favorite cognacs! It has a very clean and dry flavor profile--not heavy and oaky like some cognacs. It is definitely a "lighter" styled cognac but also nicely complex.

In fact, the medium and the other news media are not what they used to be. ← FYI--there is a very good piece in the current New Yorker by Ken Auletta--though the focus is on L'Affaire Judy the piece is really about the Times and its problems within the context of the industry. I agree with Bux. As for food--the Times, I believe, is more interested in a broader national appeal. The whole food section to me reads like New York Magazine. It is not so much the writers--most of their roster is solid--I especially like Apple and Sheraton and Asimov, Bittman is good too but rather the tonality and focus which sometimes (too often) tends toward the Food Network. Bruni --love him of hate him, should not be authoring the kind of piece on Del Posto in question here and reviewing restaurants as well. I believe the fact that he wrote the Del Posto piece (which itself had little weight or insight--it was kind of breathy newsy writing that belongs in the magazine section by another writer) does not help lend Bruni any "gravitas" as a critic and arbitor of good dining in New York-- and conversely, he certainly did not bring any gravitas to the Del Posto piece. As an example of what could have been--let's say Johnny Apple had written about Del Posto and the Batali/Bastianich empire in the magazine section--I would argue the thing would have had some substantial authority behind it and would have been an informative and more "weighty" piece. I also noted that the Times article there was a note "asking" readers to visit their website where Bruni leads a 'tour" of Del Posto etc. I would also argue that the Times is more interested in stuff like this (website) than they are about serious food writing in their Lifestyles sections.--a fact of current life.

Most restaurants I have been to that serve tasting menus with wine "pairings" seem to serve a number of small pours (as you note)--the courses are not very big so one doesn't need much wine. Also there is often not a pairing with each and every dish--some wines go with more than one course etc and some dishes are a bit larger in sixe than others. I have mixed feelings about tasting menus and attempting to pair wines with them. Few places (chefs and sommeliers) do these things really well. Also the whole thing can be a bit overwhelming. A bite or two of something and a sip or two of wine over and over is IMOP not enough time (or food and wine) to really enjoy either the food or the wine. As to your question--if you were to indicate your concern to the sommelier at the start of the meal--he or she would be able to assuage your fears and see to it that you were not confronted with a quantity of wine that would overwhelm you. After all, they should be concerned that you have a pleasant experience--I know of no sommelier that is happy seeing someone get drunk on their recommendations! In fact--I understand that Per Se offers non alcoholic beverages that pair well with the food.

That's good to hear, and I've changed the thread subtitle accordingly. I went to the place a few years ago, when it was further east and indeed two or three doors off 1st Av. I had goat phaal, and though I'm pretty much of a chilihead, that stuff was over the top. But it wasn't so much even the hot-pepperiness that got to me, but the fat. I was duly warned that the phaal was potentially dangerous to my well-being, and I finished perhaps 2/3 of my dish anyway, so the restaurant is not responsible for the fact that my stomach was upset all that night. Since the restaurant is approximately a block from my apartment, it would make sense for me to try the place again. But I won't get the phaal. ← I have had the phaal at Brick Lane. First--the two times I have eaten here the service was fine. The staff is quite friendly and accommodating. As for the Phaal--my friend and I are chiliheads and especially love Indian cuisine. we get together regularly and try different restaurants ordering phaal or vindaloo. We look for heat (a good vindaloo should have layers of heat from the subtle slow build type to the fiery up front in your face kind) and there should be flavor as well as tender meat (lamb is our favorite). At Brick Lane the phaal is something of a novelty with their "challenge" to finish it. IMOP it is also not very good. The problem is a very strong pepper taste with heat that basically overwhelms any subtlety of heat and flavor. I believe they add or dump something in at the end of the preparation to "fire it up." Many restaurants add fresh green chillies at the end of the cooking to add heat I don't know what they do at Brick Lane. Anyway--we finished our phaal's--at least all the meat (the restaurant demands that you eat all the sauce --of which there is much) to get the free beer etc. I would have considered wiping mine up with the very good bread (onion kulcha and paratha) but the sauce was--as I noted--not that good. The vindaloo is much better! Lot's of heat and some subtle notes and good, complex flavor. I would recommend it. all in all Brick Lane is fine--one of the better places for vindaloo. As for phaal--so far-the best in the city IMOP is at Chola on the east side--mid town.

Don't forget bread! Anything made with yeast is going to have alcohol in it. ← So that pretty well debunks the microdoses leads to addiction theory right there, no? Everybody grows up eating bread, and not everybody becomes an alcoholic. Therefore microdoses of alcohol don't cause alcoholism all by themselves. QED and hooray for common sense. ← I don't have a problem with wine or beer but I am "addicted" to bread! (as my waistline will attest)

Information is a good thing! Education and knowledge are very important. We also have to realize that even our knowledge base is subject to change! For eg--not too long ago--we were "told" that butter is "bad" margarine is "good." Science is great but....... What seems to be missing in this discussion is a focus on "moderation" Too much of even a "good" thing is "bad." a "treat" should be just that--an indulgence on a special ocassion-- TV is fine but watching all the time is bad.--the advertising issue would not be so large if kids weren't sitting in front of a screen for hours each day! eating fast food for dinner several times a week means that not only are kids eating too much of one type of food but that they are missing out on a family meal. MacDonald's should be an option used wisely--not a way of life! I cringe when I hear the word "meatnormouse"!!!!!! rather than try to regulate portion size--it would be far better if people armed with enough knowledge stopped demanding huge portions!!! Kids are influenced by parents and peers--yes we need to have some regulation of messages they get outside the home but it is the behaviour of adults and peers that carries far more weight! (no pun intended).

American schools have been offering less and less physical education/training in the last few years because of budget cuts, and an increased thrust to teach kids information. "No Child Left Behind" is one of the most current acts which requires schools to teach up to certain testable standards (and IMHO is a horrible implementation)--and is a laughably funded mandate. How does this affect schools budgets? Well, money to fund those mandates comes out of PE and food budgets, either directly or indirectly. So, we end up teaching kids about the 50 states' capitals and not about how to cook. Nor do we provide good food examples in the lunch rooms. ← NCLB has definitely impacted all kinds of programs. Don't get me started. Illinois is the only state with mandatory PE. In my school, students have PE daily, except for the quarter they take health during that class period. The focus has shifted from team sports to lifelong fitness. They still do sports, but they also do a 10 mile walk/run, rollerblading, yoga, aerobics and a unit on weightlifting/cardio circuits. Today as I walked the building, the 7th grade health class had nutritional data from a variety of fast food places. They had "ordered" their favorite meal, then calculated the nutritional data for that meal. They then had to revise their "order" to fall within healthy guidelines based on fat content, total calories, etc. Some ways they chose to do this included choosing smaller serving sizes, choosing a drink other than soda, or choosing different items altogether. Our school lunch program is totally outsourced. It comes prepacked in a cellophane wrapped hot pack and cold pack. Students who pay full price pay $2.10 per day. Reduced is, I think, 40 cents. It is totally Frankenfood. I ate the taco one once. I wouldn't touch the others with a 10 foot pole. We also have an a la carte program. Our parents group was concerned about the offerings. Students would make a "meal" out of hot fries or chips and gatorade. We removed all chips and cookie type products. They didn't object to ice cream, so we still have that, as well as a variety of pretzels, granola bars, and Ritz bits. Twice a week, they can buy nachos with cheese dip. It's frustrating when students walk into school in the morning with a full size bag of hot fries or chips and tell me that is their breakfast. I was so happy the day I saw a girl standing outside waiting for the bell to ring with a big piece of fried chicken on a paper plate. At least she was getting some protein. ← I can't help but see the irony here! Lot's of folks want the schools or government to do something! They want things banned and regulated. Then they rail against No Child Left behind! Does anyone realize that this effort was a government response to a problem? Just like we are looking for government to "handle the problem" of child obesity!? Do you folks realize that you are calling for "government standards" for food in schools? (that's really what this thread is about). Just like people called for government to "do something" when our kids were not learning anything? Is maybe the answer better found in parental responsibility? Is having the "government take care of everything" helping to alleviate the root cause of the problem in question or is that attitude fostering even more lack of responsibility at home? We don't have to worry about our kids--someone else will.

I live in New York, and I've seen how regulation has cleaned up the Hudson River so that it is now supposedly safe to fish in (though I still would not like to eat fish from the river). Even the Gowanus Canal, previously the paradigm of a toxic body of water (or rather, extremely stinky toxic chemicals in solution), is now fished. I don't think that's due to consumer buying habits. And I don't think that the Clean Water Act which helped clean up those bodies of water bred corruption rather than a solution (or, rather, fewer toxic chemicals in solution in our waterways). I'll take a blue, fishable Hudson River over the brown stench of my childhood any day. As you see, blanket condemnations of regulation take us way beyond the question of marketing to children... ← Today's New York Times Business section--front page carries a piece on this topic. (I am sorry but I still have not mastered the art of providing a link--hopefully, someone here will be able to post it). Pan--we do need regulations--most would not argue this. (supposedly shad roe from the Hudson is back!--no small achievement). Somewhere between anarchy and a police state there is a reasonably happy medium. Too often this debate becomes a battle of polemics--corporations/capitalism vs government. One is evil the other good. Things are not black and white here. Both entities need to be responsive to people. The government is elected to serve the populace. Corporations are people providing goods and services to people. And maybe most importantly--people need to exercise responsibility for their own lives (and their children). We need all three. We need each to do the things they do best. In the end, rules and regulations have a price--just as having no rules and regulations has a price. We need to be careful and weigh things before we act. To hold that outcomes we deem good are acheivable at any and all cost is dangerous and leads to even greater problems.

well you have reached some sane conclusions! The long term (maybe not as long term as many think) is education. Not bans or laws or punishment or scare tactics--education! people need to be armed to make choices in life. Schools need to get back to doing the things they do best. Educate and provide a good learning environment. Phys ed needs to be mandatory and fun, participation in sports emphasized. Funny, but schools used to do these things. Yes corporations can be more responsible--but let's think for a minute. Most corporations are already involved in being responsible--go to the General Mills website. We already regulate the heck out of business. advertising (especially to children is already monitored and regulated). When we regulate and ban etc it involves decisions that have a negative impact as well as a beneficial one. More regulations and focus on "responsibility" for corporations can result in higher prices. fewer jobs etc Banning things means the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater so to speak--why should people or kids with no health problems not be able to enjoy say twinkies or any other product deemed "bad." and that leads to the biggest problem. who determines what is good what is bad? what are the parameters? what determines who is "obese?" this talk of holding people responsible and taking kids away is chilling. we can not create a utopia. parents today (and experts) can't even agree as to what constitutes good child rearing practices how do we "punish bad practices." does any of this really work? did prohibition work? the problem as I see it, is actually compounded the more we turn to short term solutions. The more we ban and regulate the less impetus we have to take responsibility. To make better choices. In the end--we need laws and regulations--but we need to be careful. The real answer is in educating people so they make choices. If they make bad choices then we need to accept that. It is better to live freely in an imperfect world then to suffer the restrictions of a "utopia."

I also thank Kalypso for providing some much needed information and perspective! what is happening IMOP is we are trying to assign responsibility to institutions that go beyond their capabilities. The government should do what it does best: that is provide information and support to local schools. Schools should focus on teaching and providing a good environment for learning. They also need to provide physical education and extra curricular activities. Parents need to be parents! It is better and more efficient that schools focus on educating kids about nutrition and health and exercise. They will have a good chance of growing up to be good parents! I would argue that for decades schools tried scare tactics and bans regarding smoking. The problem did not go away--in fact, it is arguable that smoking among kids increased. It is only recently that the focus has shifted to education--when people learn about the effects of smoking (the facts) and are free to choose--they invariably will not choose to smoke. Smoking has become "uncool" and kids are actually "lecturing" parents that smoke! So too with diet and eating habits. Schools need to teach and they need to promote exercise by encouraging participation in sports and making gym classes mandatory and fun! We need to stop looking for quick fixes via banning things and scare tactics.

Whether you're excusing the actions of parents or you're excusing the actions of cynical marketing machines that contribute to the problem. It's an odd double-standard to expect perfection of parents, but to excuse the actions of corporations. Yes, they're supposed to make a profit. No, the profit motive isn't an automatic excuse for every action they may take. Let's let everybody be held accountable -- the schools who no longer teach nutrition (not I ever was taught that) and eliminated gym, and the voters who refuse to fund those programs. The sugar beet farmers whose huge subsidies help keep the cost of CoCo Puffs within reach of poor families. The television networks who think they're entitled to free use of public airwaves -- surely we capitalists can agree that a spectrum auction would have been fair, right? -- but resist oversite by the public sector. An economy that has made the two-wage-earner-family mandatory for most income groups. Rampant materialism (not a recent phenomenon, I fear). Growing affluence. Parental paranoia and overscheduling (why Jonny's not allowed to wander over to the playground to shoot hoops by himself any more). And corporations who shamelessly flog high fat, high sugar, artificially-everythinged foods to kids. And parents who let their kids live wrong. And people who want to fight complex problems with simplistic solutions. ← I don't think anyone is going to argue with your points. The issue is complex. we already regulate our airwaves and our commerce and industry and advertising. If you want to argue for more regulations I will debate that. If you are looking for better enforcement and a review and inprovement of the laws--I agree with you. In the end--there is no escaping the fact that we (parents and society) created the problems we are faced with and we can solve them. We seem to think we can make the world perfect by using laws and institutions to achieve an outcome we want. for eg--if kids watching too much TV is a problem then set rules as to how much they can watch and enforce them. can't do that? --for whatever reason--then get rid of the damn TV set. seems to me this is easier and more economically sound than trying to determine and agree upon what constitutes "junk food" then banning or regulating the manufacturing of it and/or then banning or controlling the advertising of said products. the demonization of corporations is too pat. there are good corporations and not so good.--I can't think of any that are out to "kill" kids for a profit. we have loads of laws--if some corporation breaks the law then they should be punished. It is just too complicated to try to mandate that corporations make only products that are good and beneficial and at a profit that is fair and equitable for all etc etc etc. who makes the value judgements???? In the end--we already have that power--we can not buy things we personally don't like (or collectively) and corporations will stop making them. (the advertising goes hand in hand). It is just getting tiresome hearing "the devil made me do it" over and over.

Is John Ash still going strong? anyone been lately? also I especially loved Ralph's Bistro I haven't been in Sonoma in about five years (can't wait to get back)

I think they have in the past. That's how we got the current USDA guidelines on Federal School Lunch programs. Why don't we additionally use modern research on weight loss and training principles to help these kids move and develop. Do primary schools still make kids wait 45 minutes after eating to have recess? Mine did, but that was 2 decades ago. ← The sad thing is, the real root of the problem is not addressed by guidelines (which are fine for what they are). I would ask: what happened to mandatory gym classes? and what happened to nutrition and hygene being taught? I would then ask :where have the parents been? (See the thread on child obesity and advertising etc) everyone seems to have a handy solution that involves banning something or regulating something or taxing it but there seems to be an aversion to facing up to the fact that we created these situations and if we take responsibility we can rectify them.

You may have all the answers but your "tone of voice" could use a little something, Patrick S. It's great that you have the time and knowledge to teach your daughter jujitsu. Carrot Top isn't talking about the middle class parents who need to throw their kids in the backyard to play for a while every day once they eat their wholesome fresh fruit snack. Many of the obese kids I'm thinking of have no supervision after school. Many might live in neighborhoods where it isn't safe to play outside, where watching TV indoors in the safest place for them to be while their parents aren't home. Where it's possible to get shot or at least beat up for your possessions like a ball or a bicycle. They have parents that might work more than one job, and that don't know jujitsu to teach their offspring. What about them? They probably watch a lot of TV, and are a prime target for advertising. And there aren't many simplistic answers that will get them moving. ← Ya know--making this into a money or class issue doesn't really work An excuse is an excuse. Also there are plenty of opportunities for exercise in "bad neighborhoods" there are parks and community centers and various sports leagues--by the way martial arts are very big as well. There is no excuse for letting your kids eat too much crap and sit in front of a TV set for too many hours a day. (ok there are situations that are more challenging for some people/parents--getting into those here will not get us anywhere). First-be responsible for your self and your own kids. Then worry about others. But always think out solutions carefully because there are ramifications that go well beyond the initial problem you are trying to alleviate. It is always better when people help themselves--and the best solutions to problems are to better enable people to help themselves--not to step in and force outcomes. I would ask why schools aren't teaching nutrition?--they used to. why aren't there nutritious meals at schools--there used to be. Why are there not mandatory gym classes?--there used to be. why have average TV viewing hours for kids grown to where they are today? why is it now that we are asking for these things? what happened?

You make sime very good points. IMOP--the problem here is the Governor asking for a Ban on junk foods. In otherwords one must create a definition of "junk" foods. Then in essence a blacklist is established. Foods are looked at out of context and assigned a value or non value. Silly and sheer folly. Wouldn't it make more sense to have some nutritionists apply some science and common sense here and develop balanced meals as a whole. The real problem is not neccessarily "junk" foods whatever they are-but the fact that meals should consist of different foods in appropriate portions that eaten together--provide nutrition and pleasure in eating them. What we have here is the "I am gonna ban evil foods" syndrome that makes good sound bites--our politicians are hard at work protecting our children etc. rather than taking a positive approach and actually doing something that will get good results.

You know, I actually agree with you more than one might think reading all these posts. Obesity is a serious problem to be sure. It is also a complex issue with a lot of causes. Does advertising contribute?--yes absolutely. It is a small role-IMOP. The real culprit is kids spend too much time sitting in front of TV sets--much more than the actual advertising messages. Even worse-kids are often, actually eating while they watch. This is affecting more than their size--their minds are being impacted as well. Corporations are responsive to the market place--we like to think that things are the other way round--that corporations "make" us do things. It is not that simple. The first problem with the folks that want to regulate things is they will have a hard time determining just what "junk" food actually is. There is a thread about how Illinois is attempting to ban whole milk from schools. All this is really just a band aid anyway. In the end--it all comes down to parents as the first, last and best line of defense and where parents are falling down here then the schools are most important. Education is the best and most efficient means of motivating behaviour. Schools need to do two things--each of which they are equipped to do and are therefore best at--educate kids (they will let parents know what they want just like they whine for those twinkies they saw on TV). and provide healthy food for lunch and mandatory gym classes and activities during and after school hours. banning and regulating are expensive and mostly ineffective--remember prohibition. They also risk throwing the fat baby out with the bathwater--they can infringe on our ability to have choices. Take smoking--i would argue that banning or taxing cigarettes would not work --at least not nearly as efficiently as educating kids about the risk--as smoking loses its "aura" fewer kids will try it and the problem diminishes.--it already is. This takes time but in the end--it is worth it because it works.

But this makes perfect sense, no? ← This is "Illinois" correct? so is Fois Gras now officially banned from schools as well? This all reminds me of a Woody Allen scenerio wherein a benevolent dictator who declares the wearing of dirty underwear to be contrary to the common good and orders the police to arrest any offenders. In order to make enforcement of the law easier he also declares that "henceforth all citizens will wear their underwear outside their clothing." I guess that parents are too busy worrying about the coming bird flu plague to be keeping their kids from killing themselves with twinkies! Thank God we have the government to step in and save us!

Lord help me Jesus. How the rest of your argument be taken seriously when you put stuff like this on line? Cranks and armchair critics used that line of reasoning against my grandparents' generation ("those darn flappers!") and they'll be using it against my grandkids'. Whatever is going on, cheap, easy and politically motivated pop psychology surely does not hold the answer. It's not TV commercials, it's Dr. Phil that needs to be regulated. ← It is pretty well documented that our generation is self centered and prone to whining. (how do I know?--I am part of it--you know that "experience" thing) The use of the term "parenting" has become prevalent recently and it is clear that the views on child rearing are quite different than those of our parents. This isn't the place to enter into a sociological theory debate-- but I am not dealing in "cheap easy or politically motivated" pop psychology here.--by the way what politics are you alluding to? I am also not "making an argument." It is pretty clear we all agree that child obesity is a problem. That nutrition should be taught in schools. That parents are responsible for their kids. All I am noting is: --advertising to children is already heavily regulated --product manufacturing is also regulated --all corporations are not inherrently evil --it is difficult at best to specify and categorize just what junk foods are --we should apply common sense and some healthy skepticism when we see "dire warnings" from any source In recent years we have seen dire predictions about "epidemics" -- (note these are never presented as a mere problem) from SARS to Bird Flu--to obesity (not just plain old obesity but "morbid" obesity) to ADD to Asthma to diabetes to......... As for the generational "thing"--I would only note that we are the generation that has come up with a seemingly endless list of maladies like TMJ and various "syndromes" to explain away every little headache we get. We have perfected the art of taking real problems--blowing them out of proportion increasing the scope and creating a "crisis" and then spending and regulating. All these are serious problems to be sure. But if one simply accepts all the hyperbole then things are pretty grim indeed. So all I am saying is we need better perspective, better more reliable information, more acceptance of responsibility for ourselves and our children and less "knee jerk": let's ban-- lets regulate let's sue everyone--let's pour tax dollars into quick solutions, let's....... I just got done watching a huge soccer tournement--literally thousands of kids of all ages--not one "morbidly obese" (I am not stupid--I know that there are kids who do have serious problems and I am all for solutions and help that actually works) hardly indicative of an "epidemic." So, if there really is an epidemic out there--who is responsible? TV commercials? General Mills and MacDonalds? junk food? parents? IMOP the answer is probably all of the above (and more). So let's look at the problem further: kids are fat how did they get this way? kids watch TV (do parents control how much etc?) TV advertising is subversively making kids want to eat junk food. kids can't buy junk food themselves so how do they get it? who determines what kids eat anyway? TV? parents? Who should determine what kids eat? MacDonalds, the governemnt. parents? enough already--I am more concerned that some Belgian Monks are preventing us from drinking their beer!--the nerve!!!!!

I believe you have misrepresented this issue. The trappist monks distribute the beer in question at the monastery--"cars line up." The beer carries a label--"not for resale" The Monks believe that the quality of the beer can not be guaranteed if one buys the beer via any means other than direct pick up at the brewery/monastery. You used the term "no American customers wanted" --this is a patent misrepresentation of the articles you provided links for--in fact a photo of the monks loading a "Corvette" with their beer is used in one piece. This is a legitimate concern with most every alcoholic beverage--I worked with Beck's for years and the brewery was always concerned with Beer sold outside their approved distribution chain for financial and quality reasons. At no time --reading these articles did I get even a remote impression that the Monks did not want Americans to buy their beer nor any other country--they simply want customers to get their beer direct from the monks--that is their approved distribution method. The articles both made it clear that the Monks do not consider themselves a for profit brewery that makes and exports beer in the traditional manner. This is about gray market merchandise nothing more nothing less.

Starbucks uses a pretty dark roast IMOP. Full city? I have found their coffee a bit on the 'strong" side. also my understanding is the darker the roast the less distinctive or subtle the flavor notes.

anecdotal information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. ------------ your second point is a tactic often used to exclude someone from a debate/discussion or to devalue someone's opinions--I am sure that is not what you are doing here. Experience does not neccessarily make one an "expert." It has its place in lending some weight. I would posit that actually having experience being a child may be more important in the discussion than being a parent. Most of these "problems" with children today. is a result of our generation not our parent's generation. I have always held that our parents were pretty good at raising kids--it is a result of our rebelling against our parents and their values that has created most of the problems our kids have today. (that's really a debate for somewhere else thougfh) ------------- I am certainly not saying there is no problem with child obesity. I have spent plenty of time around some elementary schools and to be honest--I haven't seen an "epidemic." you have--I believe you (whether or not you have any kids yourself). In fact, we are told (and I have seen) there is an explosion of youth sports underway. More kids are participating than ever before--- in fact parents are complaining there is too much sports......... Also this seems to be the most appearance conscious generation ever-so there is plenty of anecdotal (and otherwise) information that is somewhat in conflict here. ---- I do find it perplexing that so many people accept any argument at face value from any organization that has an altruistic name or mission statement while they trash or question any corporation or entity that has a profit motive. for eg--why would we just accept anything the SG's office says and question the defense department--same governemnt! ----- I do have issues with the pervasiveness of advertising and some of its methods. and we do need rules, laws and regulations. schools do need to teach nutrition and have phys ed requirements. --- so in the end--it doesn't matter so much what the rest of the world is experiencing--if we do our part to make sure our children are not having health problems --then we will have been good parents (and the world will be that much better).

I agree junk food gives us pleasure, but I was asking about the benefit of advertising to small children. Since they have no money of their own (typically allowances are given to kids older than toddlers), it seems as though advertising junk food to them is mainly to get them to whine and cry to their parents for the products. And since we seem to expect parents to say no and make sure they have a healthy diet overall, it seems like it's just creating an additional battleground between parents and children that doesn't need to be there. No argument about PSB from me! But as far as paying for programming, I can certainly understand advertising junk food to older kids or using advertising to influence what kids want for toys, school supplies, etc. But targeting kids under 8 years old who are too young to differentiate between ads and facts with messages that junk food is good is a different issue for me. Again, I'm not suggesting banning such ads, just that we balance them out by helping to better educate kids and parents on the (potentially lifelong) effects of watching junk food advertising as well as actually eating massive amounts of the stuff. ← I think we agree. It is not advertising or so called junk food per se but rather abuse. I would argue that a child who does whine and beg for something and does not get it because a parent says no will eventually learn that the parent is in control, that they can not have everything they want and that everything they see on TV is not something they should have--is better off. Later on they will learn why--parents can explain and schools can provide facts about nutrition etc. this child will be better equiped to handle life and to make far more difficult and important choices. I also believe that the biggest failing is not lack of government regulation but rather bad or lazy parenting. too many kids are allowed to watch far too much TV (and play mindless video games). also--too many kids are not getting enough exercise and are suffering because of over indulgent parents. Finally, I am somewhat skeptical of the claims that child obesity is as "rampant" and is as big a problem as some would have us believe. I am as suspicious of many of the groups proffering dire warnings as I am of corporations trying to sell us stuff. They both have a profit motive. In fact, the corporations are more above board--they advertise and make no bones about selling --they are what they are. Some of these 'public interest" groups and government agencies are far more subversive. What we need as citizens and parents is accurate information and perspective and honest debate so we can make the decisions we are perfectly capable of on our own and for our children. We all need to learn and practice moderation!

I disagree with your premise: the "feds" do regulate "marketing." and Advertising is not "insidious." It is up front and clear what it is.--not all products are bad. True very young kids have difficulty discerning things but parents need to exercise some control. The "feds" (really us) can (and should) go only so far--we as parents need to do our share. I also have a real problem with defining "junk" food. What is it? Who decides? Schools should teach the science behind nutrition. Parents should have their own standards and apply them in the home.

Do you really believe that? Because I don't. I believe that most corporations are out to make a buck, and continue to make a buck by creating a need, real or imagined, for their product. ← I believe that corporations often do some good through community involvement and charitable contributions. I do not, however, believe this comes from the goodness of their hearts. Decisions are based on market research, which determines when the benefits of public relations and free advertisement outweights the cost of charity. But on the subject of doing good, I can't see how advertising junk food to young children benefits our society. If children have no money of their own and parents are supposed say no to the majority of unhealthy foods, then what purpose does the advertising serve? ← How about the benefit of pleasure. Twinkies taste good (to a lot of people kids included). We don't "need" fois gras" either --there are plenty of people who believe that fois gras is "junk" food. Also wine and ice cream and...... This is my main point. Those advertisers pay for the programming that our kids watch. So no advertising--no cartoons or any other programming. Please don't bring up PBS either --it is basically the same deal--ever notice how many Sesame Street related products are clogging toy store shelves--just more subtle. Corporations are not inherrently corrupt. neither is Capitalism or making a profit. On the contrary, I would argue there is no better economic system. but again, that is really not the issue here). I have worked with many different companies they were all profit motivated and all were ethical and staffed by good people. We regulate our industry and commerce heavily. Messages targeting kids go through a massive amount of review before they get on the air. Kids will recieve messages good and bad from all sorts of places. It is up to the parents to monitor these messages and provide some guidance and education to help kids deal with all the information. It is not just TV advertising. How many parents read the books kids get at school? It is up to parents to sort through all the messages and to say no--- not the government. What you consider to be "junk food" and how you as a parent deal with your children's diets may not be what another parent agrees with. Yes we do need regulations and rules and laws (we have reams of them). But where does it end? This may be a moot debate someday--it has already been "determined" that too much TV watching is bad for kids--so is the answer to have the government ban TV? or to "sanitize " it for us? or is it better to place some responsibility on parents and have them determine what their kids should watch and how much? I opt for the latter. we have ratings for programming--so it is up to parents to regulate what is watched in the home--it would be easier if all R rated programming was banned--we wouldn't have to make any rules. I believe that not all messages directed at kids are bad or are selling bad products (I also want to reserve the right to determine which is which). I also believew that twinkies or sugar pops are not inherrently bad--I do believe that eating too much of these items is bad. Some may disagree with me--that is what is so great about this--I have my standards and you have yours! Diversity.