JohnL

This seems to be spinning out of control a bit. The assumption that corporations are inherrently evil is absurd. In fact, most corporations are not stupid--they are for the most part, responsive to the market place--otherwise they go out of business. Arguments about profit motives and shareholder responsibilities are more appropriate for an economics board---not here. What is a fact is Corporations and individuals that make up corporations are already held to a mind boggling array of laws and regulations. Advertisers and their agencies are subject to broadcast standards and practices--especially when it comes to marketing to children. There are government agencies--literally thousands of people at work policing corporations. There are civil and criminal codes there are industry codes etc etc etc. There are numerous citizens groups--I would argue that many of these are no less self promoting than the corporations they seek to watch over. For example, we are often quick to take any mesage a group with an altruistic name says at face value while any message by "MacDonalds" is looked at as "propagenda." I have seen a lot of references to "junk" food, yet there are precious few specifics. What foods exactly are, evil? Is fois gras as bad for you as sugar pops? Milk--evil? Is it possible that eating too much of anything is maybe not a good idea? Perhaps the real message here is moderation? and Common sense. In the end it is we who are responsible for ourselves and our kids. we either step up to the plate and do our part--or we cower in retreat and let "government" do it all for us. Does anyone really believe that more rules and regulations are needed? Do we really believe that 'evil" profit motivated corporations are colluding with advertising agencies and the media and government to slowly kill our kids? as for General Mills--I suggest that a visit to their website is in order--and a look at their document titled "Corporate Social Responsibility" . Is this just a clever ruse--to fool us? Is it more brain washing? I don't know--I believe in healthy skepticism. But I also know that corporations and their products are designed to offer some benefit to society. I also believe things are not always black and white. And I believe that well informed people can make good decisions about their own lives and their children's lives. As that marketing genius--Sy Simms once said--"An educated consumer is our best customer!"

I wonder if we are being a bit "snobbish" here. There seems to be an assumption that wine needs to be in a glass bottle. The real test would be if we took the wine from a bottle and tasted it blind vs the same wine from a can--I doubt many of us would be able to tell the difference (mainly because I am certain that Coppola has already done this test). so If the wine does not taste differently? Then what is the import of the bottle? Especially when one could make the case that sparkling wine from a can offers many benefits. The piece linked offers these benefits up--easier to drink on the beach, poolside, lighter more portable, no need for a glass. The beverage can compete vs beer etc. What is wrong with any of that? Second there is a an assumption that Europeans are more "sophisticated" than us Americans when it comes to wine. In fact, Europeans have long viewed wine as a simple beverage to enjoy with food and in various everyday situations. In some areas of France one can go to a winery and fill up their own container (whatever they choose to bring/utilize) with wine from a large steel tank via a hose. Doesn't sound very sophisticated to me. Boxed wine has been accepted throughout Europe (it is growing here as well). That is wine in a box containing a plastic bladder. Not just everyday wine either but some rather "higher end" stuff. I currently have sitting on my kitchen counter a bottle of premium ($29.95), New Zealand Pinot Noir--with a screw top-- that is reputed to be quite good (I'll post a tasting note when I have had a chance to open it up). What we are seeing is the demystification of wine. As we accept wine as a beverage to be enjoyed in more and more situations--at the beach or poolside for eg--the wine industry will find more ways to make wine easier and more accessible to enjoy. The jury is still out as to the impact of boxes and screw tops and aluminum cans on the ageing of wine--I can say that anyone who is cellering fine wines would gladly trade the ceremony and mystique of pulling a cork for the security that their Chateau Latour is not ruined by a tainted cork. Much of the world's wine is, in fact, held, vinified and even aged in large stainless steel vats or tanks prior to bottling. In fact, most of the world's sparkling wines go from steel tanks into glass bottles. So really, what's the big deal if that wine goes from a metal container into another metal container? Would simple inexpensive sparkling wine suffer a decline in quality or ill effects? Or would our love affair with tradition and ceremony be bruised? The winemakers have pretty much answered the first question and the sales of boxed, canned, screw topped wines are answering the second. In the end, its not the container but the contents that are important--if the container offers some advantages without harming the contents then I am all for it. Let's also not ignore the importance of tradition--we need that too-- it enhances the enjoyment of life--but let's apply tradition to wines deserving of it--I am not calling for Krug in a can but some Cava or prosecco or Coppola sparkling wine? what's the big deal?

Both Adagio and harney's are good. I have been buying tea and tea brewing items from Upton Teas www.uptontea.com IMOP they are one of the best outlets anywhere. One idea for you--they offer gift setw that include loose tea--along with the Chatsford Mug infuser system. The "system" is a really nice Chatsford hand painted bone china cup/mug with a simple mesh basket that fits inside--you can basically, brew an individual cup of tea. I use this all the time. they also have tea pots etc.

Zennenn good points and all very valid IMOP. However, we simply can not 'sanitize" the world and create a utopia where everyone is thin and healthy--the cost is far too great and how many of us really want that? Kids will be kids. I am all for reasonable regulations (I support traffic laws) schools should teach nutrition and have good foods available. Banning things rarely works--remember prohibition? Kids will sneak off to MacDonalds and eat Doritos and drink Coke--if they are getting exercise and having a good breakfast and dinner at home as well as information about health and nutrition they should be just fine! If we do not teach and train kids to be responsible when it comes to good eating habits and to deal with advertising messages and health and hygene issues..... then what happens when they have to deal with drugs and sex and...... It's all about preparing them to make choices.

Herein lies the problem. You use the term "junk"--who would determine what "junk" is? That's a value judgement that should be made by parents on an individual basis--not by government. Kids get lots of messages--from many sources--TV, peers, parents,teachers, etc. it would be folly to try to control every message to create a "perfect" world. That to me is far more frightening. What kids need--and Pan touched on this above--is to arm kids with some perspective and knowledge to be able to deal with life. When they are very young, parents need to control how much TV they watch and to say No--to set parameters and rules. Unfortunately we have created a "no fault" world where personal responsibility is being turned over to others. Whenever we struggle with a tough decision, we tend to want to pass it off--parents wouldn't have to say no if twinkies were banned--easy. Parents wouldn't have to regulate how much TV kids were watching if kids programs were banned or if TV programs were "sanitized." Parents are the people who should "raise" kids--not the government. A twinkie isn't responsible for obesity in kids--parents who don't see that their kids get exercise, parents who let kids sit in front of a TV set for several hours a day, parents who don't say no when kids ask for things they shouldn't have, parents who fail to teach moderation, parents who allow kids to play video games endlessly, parents who don't discuss what children are doing with them, parents who don't teach good eating habits.... No one ever said that being a parent was an easy job--it is the single most important job--the quality of our future depends upon it. I just refuse to accept the complaint that "My kid is obese, that's not my fault--it the MacDonald's corporation!"

Silverbrow--are you Frank Bruni? (just asking) My wife and I both love to dine early. (I agree with the Fat Guy). At our ages we no longer prize the membership in the throngs of peak hour diners. When I was twenty or so-I had a primal urge to be "in" and barring that-- to at least be in synch with the in crowd. Dinner at ten pm (at a restaurant that wouldn't take a reservation from me if they really knew who I was or wasn't) then drinks and dancing at an after hours club on a Monday night followed by a cab ride home after dawn was to be "in." To be the male Paris Hilton!!!! It was also short lived--alas I had to get a real job. My metabolism changed I found that my cutoff time for enjoying a good vindaloo to be earlier and earlier--lest I wander the halls of my apartment at two AM like Hamlet. Now I love an early meal--I have even become one with the small children and elderly--my dining companions. Like the Fat Guy--I can rest comfortably and enjoy my favorite TV programs and then off to bed to dream peacefully--of the good old days!

I agree with Bux here. I also recommend trying Maldon salt from England. Not very expensive--It is a sea salt that comes in relatively large "flakes" which are very nice as a finishing salt for their salinity also their crunch. (I love it on Sea Scallops etc).

Aren't you referring to the Sunday New York Times Magazine Section rather than New York Magazine? I've always been under the impression that NYMag is an entirely separate entity from the Times. ← Pan-- Yes it is a bit confusing (I am the culprit!). I believe I read somewhere that the current editor of the Times Food section is from New York Magazine-- not the Times Sunday Magazine section. I do not even know the person's name -let alone their background. I am not sure where I read this--or whether or not this is, in fact true, I note it because the NY Times Lifestyles sections seem to be looking more and more like the lifestyles coverage in New York Magazine. Bruni's reviews also seem to have a bit of the old Gael Greene approach in them. Maybe this is just me--I would be curious as to what you (and others) think!

Perhaps "puff piece" is a bit strong. The Times is treating this news story--"a new restaurant is opening soon." as a major event. I am not sure they justified that in the piece which reads in part, like a " pre review" of the restaurant. Why is Bruni going over (in advance) what he will have to cover in his formal review? Bruni has addressed the "empire" situation in NYC before--his coverage of the Tourandel empire (notable for some very poor prose) etc. this is an interesting subject or angle and certainly ok for coverage in the paper-even by Bruni but why now? and in this manner? I still believe that this piece should have been written by someone other than Bruni--he will review the place formally in the future-- and the piece should have run in the magazine. Bruni would certainly have been able to treat the Del Posto as a news item with some comments in a less prominent position in the paper.

There is practically nothing that appears in the Times "lifestyle" sections that doesn't have the helping hand of a publicist somewhere. Where do you think Florence Fabricant gets most of her news? Most of it comes from publicists. ← It is more interesting to look at how varying media outlets handled this story. (publicist assisted or not). The same day as the Times piece appeared, the Post ran its story about Del Posto. Steve Cuozzo was much more skeptical/critical--the story in the Post was handled as more of a news item wherein Cuozzo applied a critical eye and attempted to put the opening of Posto into some sort of perspective. (I can't keep from thinking of Del Frisco everytime I see Del Posto--is this a new trend?). The Post critic attempts to provide some context and perspective--something a good critic must do--how will this restaurant fit into the current scene in NY as a restaurant, as an expensive restaurant and as an Italian restaurant etc. The Times gives this opening all a good publicist could ask for and more (whether or not, in fact, a Publicist had anything to do with the piece). Clever and cute staged photos --top of a full page in the food section and the kind of oooh and ahhh factor that makes a publicists day. Bruni spends a lot of time on the Batali "empire" and their success formula. His "context" is limited at best and there is little in the piece that reflects any critical eye applied to the news. There is nothing in this piece that could not have been written by a good "features" writer. My point is that the Times is losing "gravitas" . The Del Posto piece is a "puff" piece lent seriousness by the fact that the Times restaurant critic wrote it. As a mention is a "typical" critic's notebook column as a news piece with some brief comments by Bruni this would be fine--but the prominence of the piece yesterday and its very non critical look at the Batali Empire are troubling. This is not about conflict of interest--all the to do about whether Bruni is recognized etc is IMOP a big fat red herring--rather it is about the Times and how I see the paper as losing its focus and becomming more and more like New York Magazine for eg. Not that there is anything wrong with New York Magazine--just that there already is one and if one considers what the Times has been over the paper's history..well it is distrubing. As an interesting contrast--The Post has been making an attempt to become more "serious" the two papers seem to be going in opposite directions. I do not know if the Post will be succesful or not-that remains to be seen--but right now the Times is struggling. Maybe the upside is--when Bruni actually reviews Del Posto he can focus on what a restaurant critic should write about--he's already covered the decor and the "Batali Empire" stuff.

I don't think this is a question of conflict of interest.--Bruni will review the place when it has been open and that will be that. The article is not a critical look at anything. It is a "soft" profile piece. I see no evidence that the story required the 'expertise" of an Italian food specialist. Or the analytical eye of the Time's restaurant critic. It lays out the goals (hopes and dreams) of the owners of a new and ambitous venture in New York restaurants. I still see this as more comfortably ensconced in the Sunday Magazine. Again, I see significant changes in the Time's direction and atmosphere. It is what it is.

Probably the best treatment would have been to fill the bath tub with yogurt (lassiz even better) and..... By the way--the Scotch Bonnet and the Habanero are NOT the same/identical. According to Mark Miller's "The Great Chile Book" and Amal Naj's seminal work "Peppers" the Scotch Bonnet is a close relative to the Habanero. (evidently chiles are like grapes they adapt and mutate at the drop of a hat--and like grape vies they are also prone to reflect climate and soils etc in their taste and heat). another relative is the "Jamaican Hot"--also the rocotillo (a pepper which I have searched for a long time and have never found).

There are two issues here. First--the paper's restaurant reviewer should not be writing this kind of piece. Second--after reading it --I thought it to be the type of semi news--event announcement--publicists dream that often appears in the pages of New York Magazine (hence my point about the editor--though I am not certain the editor of the Time's Food section is in fact from NY Mag). The story struck me as a better "fit" for the Times Sunday magazine--but that's just me. Clearly, the opening of Del Posto is news but the article in today's Times seemed somehow out of place for the front page of the food section.

My understanding is--the Time's editor responsible for the food section is from New York Magazine. It is the paper's management--editors etc-that are responsible for the assignments. IMOP-The Times has shifted from a "paper of record" to a more "lifestyle" oriented journal. It seems to me that they are more interested in becoming "relevent" to their audience than in performing a journalistic service. Thus, they see no possible blurring of entertainment and journalism here. It is also IMOP-why their restaurant reviews are focusing more and more on identifying what the current "hip" restaurants are and why, many reviews spend a lot of time on "setting the scene" rather than balancing the traditional--food, service, decor reporting. That is, they "see" their audience as having a set of priorities and they are, in turn, re- setting their priorities. A bit of journalistic "pandering" if you will.

Smart Buy in Ft Lee is good. also Wine Legend in Livingston I second the nominations of Wine Library and Gary's both very good and if you want a lot of personal attention Jason's recommendation of "Wine For All" in Tappan NY is very good--Eli Hardoff the owner is very passionate and knowledgeable and this is a very small place so you won't get lost in the crowd. It is on RT 303 just over the border in NY. I would be curious as to what places you have had less than satisfactory experiences at.

Hi In reading your post, I notice you indicate you are looking for a "nice bottle of red to sip "like it was a port." I understand that to mean you are looking for a red wine-- NOT a fortified red wine? All the recommendations here are fine (especially the Banyuls--though I would disagree that the granache grape is not IMOP "oft maligned"). These are all desert wines or fortified wines etc. If you are looking for a red wine, and I have often come home after a dinner or night out and opened a nice red to sip by the fire, I would suggest you go to your local wine shop and engage the proprietor. I think what you are looking for--silky smooth, rich, full bodied red--can be found in a few areas. I would look at a nice Chateauneuf du Pape--these wines are rich and can have a soft smooth quality.--they are also nicely complex. Also an Australian Shiraz or a California Cabernet or meritage. qalso Spain has some interesting wines that fit the flavor profile you note--Toro or Priorat as well as Rioja make some nice big rich reds--many fine ones can be had for thirty dollars or so. Italy has some good wines from Tuscany--the Terrabianco Compaccio is a favorite of mine. You probably want to avoid something that is very tannic. A good idea would be to decant the wine before you leave for dinner if you do go for something a bit tannic. Your wine merchant should be able to help out--he/she knows what they have in stock. The challenge here is your price level--good local wine merchants often live for this kind of challenge--it is easy enough to recommend a 1947 Cheval Blanc but a thirty dollar limit will be a welcome test of their skill and knowledge. good luck also please let us know the outcome!

I am curious if anyone has tried Jaques Torres hot chocolate mix's? One has chilies spicing it up. I have tried the regular--it is ok. He seems to mix both cocoa powder and nibs of chocolate. I have had a heard time getting the cocoa and nibs to come together in terms of melting. also these are pretty expensive (at Balducci's) eighteen bucks for 16 ounces I believe. I have gotten some great suggestions here though and look forward to trying them. (now if I can just find my ice skates....)

I have been recommending this wine a lot here and elsewhere. "Basa" A white from Spain. My wife and I have been drinking this regularly for a couple of years now and are not tired of it. It is inexpensive--goes for eight to ten dollars a bottle here in NYC. Great as an aperitif and goes well with food. You also might want to consider a good Prosecco--these sparklers are inexpensive--again eight to twelve bucks and are refreshing and also go well with light food. For reds--I like the Ravenswood vintner's selections. a bit more expensive are some really good Rioja's from the 2001 vintage: Muga Riserva (twenty to twenty five) and Remeluri.

There's some disagree in the world of wine: It is also the defects that often give the wine its singular individiuality and character. ... despite all the techniques to make higher qualitiy, there is still a place for wines with a handful of defects that give them undeniably character as well as greatness." Robert M. Parker jr., The Wine Advocate 146 , p. 4 But I still think that Parker is biased towards "Wagner"-wines opposed to "Schubert"-wines (to use a music metaphor). Fortunatley, what wine merchants here told me, recently the public showed a lot of interest in elegant (aka "thin, watery") wines. Could be that the worst of the blockbuster fad is over now. ← Boris, a very good point. Much of all this " too do" is a result of mis communication. It is also a result of the imprecise nature of wine evaluation. Few would argue that only a miniscule number of wines are "perfect" and that a "perfect" wine could be less than exciting to drink. Imperfections are often what makes a wine interesting to drink. However, "elegant" should have nothing to do with "thin and watery." That was and is my point. Grapes that are under ripe is not a good thing. If it were there would be no chaptalization. (no one would care). There would also be no laws or restrictions on what grapes are grown where in Europe. It is why for eg,. Cabernet Sauvignon is not grown in the Champagne district. What happens though, is the trade has to sell their wine regardless of its quality. The trade has a history of taking a poor quality wine and making it attractive to consumers. They distort things by calling poor quality wines "elegant" "food wines" "wines of great character" "charming wines" and so on. There are many perfectly fine wines that are deserving of these descriptors--but the trade takes advantage of the imprecision of the wine vocabulary. This isn't neccessarily wrong, it is what salepersons often resort to. For years Detroit sold inferior automobiles via some pretty creative use of language. We should also note a very important fact. For many years, wine writers and critics were often part of the trade. If you can find it, I strongly recommend "Wine Snobbery" by Andrew Barr which deals with the "shoddy practices" of the wine trade. Along comes Parker who takes an independant approach as well as a consumerist point of view. I have noticed that a large part of the criticism of Parker starts with the trade. Parker tastes a wine gives his opinion. Most of the time Parker only features wines that score 80 or more though he tastes many many more wines. He is writing the "Wine Advocate" containing recommendations. Most other newsletters do the same. It would be pointless to include wines that score poorly. Stereo equipment review books do this as do other wine publications. However on occasion, Parker notes something negative about a group of wines and sometimes notes when a wine that has a strong track record and thus, great expectations--underperforms-- for eg--Mouton or a wine that is touted by the wine press--the Mount Mary's Australian wine that set Mr Halliday off. Parker went on to alert his readers/consumers that in his opinion, the Yarra region (where the Mount Mary's is from) though highly touted by the trade (and the press--one and the same here) was not performing well. His professional opinion. It is understandable why Halliday was bent out of shape--he is part of the wine press/trade and they are promoting wines from Yarra (the Mount Mary's is listed at Fifty Dollars or more). I would posit that if the Mount Mary's were a $20 wine this whole thing would not amount to much at all. As a result Halliday declares that Parker, obviously does not like or "get" wines that come from cool climates. This is patently ridiculous--I can reel off hundreds of wines that come from cool climates that Parker has rated highly and recommended. But this now becomes part of the conventional wisdom about Parker and anyone who has an axe to grind accepts it as fact. In reality, if anyone takes the time to read the Parker review of the wine and the Yarra, one would see Parker is critical of wines that are made from under ripe fruit. In fact, there are a few wines in Parker's review--from the Yarra Valley that recieve good to exellent scores from him. It is easier to attack Parker on the grounds that he (parker) does not like wines from cool climates (an untruth) than to claim parker doesn't like wines that are made from under ripe fruit.(the truth). So, in the end, Halliday, for the reasons stated often here, is basically questioning Parker's professional ecpertise because Parker has been critical of wines Halliday is promoting--Parker also "exposed" the Australian wine press for their less than critical approach. Jancis Robinson throws some fuel on the fire by featuring this "tempest in a teapot" because she has her own axe to grind. Here I am disgusted with her constant nit picking Parker--it should be beneath her. She is a fine writer and taster in her own right. Note she merely deals in the gossip of the Parker Halliday feud rather than provising her own opinion of the Yarra Valley and its wines. Again, Parker is a critic and wine writer. He is expressing his opinions--that's really all. One would expect that a good critic would be at odds with the wine trade--they need each other--but they are also adversaries (or should be). The conventional wisdom about him--he only likes big wines (whatever they are) he doesn't like wines that have finesse (whatever that is) and so on are so much silliness. To say a professional wine taster can not differentiate between his own personal likes and dislikes and assess wines accurately is wrong headed. There is one interesting fact to point out here-- James Halliday is a wine critic, writer and wine judge for trade tastings in Australia--he has also been a wine maker. in the Yarra Valley.

well this pretty much made my day! Really--this should be posted in general food--it is priceless! (I am still laughing)

Vinfidel! I do agree with you. (Your English is fine--where are you from?). I think that there is a lot of professional jealousy. Ms Robinson-- also reviews wines for a living is a fine writer and it is a shame that she engages in petty sniping and gossip. as I noted earlier--why did she feel the need to perpetuate this petty feud (Halliday and Parker) on her website? Notice that she does not provide any insight by discussing the Yarra Valley and its wines (at least for non paying customers--I am not a "purple pages" member). So what was her motivation? Also no one ever provides any supporting evidence when they attack Parker--it is always vague claims like "he only likes big wines." or "he doesn't like cool climate wines" etc. Anyway Parker's new book is expensive--but in the opening he does a great job explaining what in his opinion constitutes greatness in wines. His detractors would do well to read this before they toss conventional wisdom around. also Steve Tanzer in his latest newsletter interviews Michel Rolland giving Rolland a chance to respond to the portrayal in Mondovino--this is very enlightening. I think a lot of people tend to jump on a bandwagon and do not look at any other sides to these issues.\ cheers!

It's that time of year again. In addition to Coffee and tea, a cup of hot chocolate or cocoa is in order! I have just begun to try Jacques Torres Hot Chocolate. Not bad--though the chocolate nibs dont always melt into the cocoa uniformly. (I like half whole milk and half--half and half) I have enjoyed Droste's as well. Is there anything else I should be trying?

Carswell--so angry! We are talking about a wine writer. If you don't like him that's fine. Don't read him. That's what Ms Robinson should do--ignore him. You would both be much happier! (unless you both achieve some sort of catharsis in you blind hatred of the man). Note I said "blind." because if you want to discuss or debate Parker you need to read and understand what he is about.--you know --understand the topic. In fact, the Halliday, Robinson thing we are talking about here--is pretty much a lot of silliness that is really of little or no consequence to wine lovers anywhere in the world. As I see it --it comes down to Halliday taking umbrage at parker who wrote: "Yarra valley--This is Australia most fashionable viticultural area as well as a darling of the their wine press. It's proponants (the provincial Australian wine press) argue that the climate and resulting wines come closest in spirit to those of Bordeaux and and Burgundy in France. I am not convinced. Located in Victoria, this is a cool climate area outside Melbourne, and every major red and white glamour varietal is planted.....There is much more sizzle than substance for most wines wines from Yarra valley." This is the opinion of a critic--he is paid to express his opinions--people follow them to one degree or another or they don't subscribe to them. Parker hasn't purchased billboards or broadcast this on world wide TV it's in a damned newsletter! Some of these wines go for fifty bucks and more a bottle. For this, Halliday goes on the attack--Parker doesn't like cool climate wine, Parker doesn't get Yarra, he hasn't tasted enough Australian wine on and on and on. None of this is remotely true. Or you can believe Halliday totally. OK But why does anyone care here? Why do you care? Why does Jancis Robinson allocate any space on her website? Is this a major topic of debate in the wine world? Wouldn't her subscribers be better served with her review of these Australian wines rather than what some other critic thinks? As for Halliday--he's neglecting the fact that Parker actually raves about the current state of Australian wines--the chamber of commerce couldn't do a better job touting what Australia is doing these days. Halliday can't see past one perceived slight over one of many regions. That's his problem. What is yours? or Ms Robinson's. In the end--I am at a loss as to why Parker (or anyone) drives you folks to distraction. He's a critic. He is supposed to have opinions--you agree or disagree--or better yet don't care. also I notice that you attempt to "pre-empt" any debate by labeling us--"Apologists" actually, I do like Parker (I don't worship him) and I also read any number of other critics. Tanzer, Wine Spectator, Coates,Burghound, Robinson, Waugh, and so on. I just believe that Parker is often attacked on grounds that are either baseless or vague. I just like to see some reason ansd fairness in any debate.

Isinglass has also long been used as a fining agent by fine wine makers.

It is a little known (I think) fact that Cuban cigars are regularly shipped via mails from Canada and switzerland etc--reputable shops in these countries will take orders and ship. Also--Diamonds are shipped from South Africa to the US jewelry industry via Parcel Post from Europe. The anonymity afforded a package in the postal system is a guarantee of safety. (I am not sure I have that level of trust in our postal service but....)