JohnL

ps To get back to Wells. Her reference to Robuchon was marginally ethical-- I think. She was obviously using him as a reference point. This too is akin to name dropping to a lesser degree than Hesser because it is more germain to the review she is writing. However-I wish she would have elaborated a bit as to why those razor clams are slightly better at Robuchon instead of assuming we all know what Robuchon's clams are like!

I think the real point is: critics need to exercise care when they make comparisons or references. The real problem with Hesser's reference to JGV is that it was poorly chosen to begin with regardless of any "ties" financial or otherwise (she could have been dating him secretly for all we know). The fact is her reference was a cheap shot at the restaurant she was reviewing and was out of left field so to speak. It did little to advance her point. (it was literary name dropping to show she is savvy). This is the real problem with Hesser and her ilk--their work is burdened with their egos and attitudes--they are trying to be hip.

This is good news! I have always thought that March is one of the top five or so restautrants in the New York area. It seems to be somewhat under appreciated by foodies. Perhaps because it has been 'quietly" operating for a long time now and is not new news! Nish (I have spoken briefly to him at March a few times) is one of the most humble and unassuming chef's I have ever met and one of the best. Also-Nyack is sort of on the way from Manhattan to Brewster -a weekly trip my wife and I make so might be nice reason to detour a bit ovwer the Tap!

I read somewhere that the "palate" or one's sensory perceptions involving taste actually "adjust" to the effects of smoking etc. I enjoy a good cigar on a farly regular basis and do not notice any ill effects. Of course, I wouldn't enjoy that cigar at the same time I am having a meal. Once, long ago my wife and I and another couple were dining in a fine French restaurant in Westchester (yes there are fine french restaurants in Westchester--but that's another post). Across the room a woman was dining who must have been eighty and throughout her entire meal she had a cigarette going--puffing away during and in between courses. She also had a wonderful coordination --putting food in her mouth then taking a puff--of knife, fork and Marlboro. She also had a hacking cough that made things even more interesting. Between smoking, eating and coughing she certainly had a lot on her plate! Anyway--I have always come down on the side of individual freedoms vs the "good" for the community--it is a balancing act --and I am afraid we are going to far in one direction. I do not recall being asked my opinion on banning smoking from all public establishments (these are still privately owned??) and I certainly do not like governmend by fiat. But hey none of this is really germain to the topic is it? My answer to the question posed: NO! ;-)

It's just a TV show! Pure entertainment. Ever notice how characters in a Shakespeare play are "treated"? I believe that all the participants on screen were "consenting adults!" and that no contestants were harmed during the making....

from Steven Shaw, circa 2001Even if you are not in the business of being a restaurant critic or food writer, do you ever dine out with friends and/or family and suggest that everyone have something different? This to allow different tastes among the diners? Or is the idea of "sharing" repugnant? I think it is a wonderful idea, especially with personally close friends ... your thoughts? ← This is a good question. It depends upon the situation. If there is a consensus that we order as a group--that is a number of different dishes are ordered and passed around; then I usually "vote" for a few items that interest me (and assume the others are doing the same or just don't care). However--most of the time -I am interested in "putting together"/ordering a meal that I am interested in. I do not care so much what my dining companion(s) are ordering. I also do not appreciate people who take "sharing" for granted. I believe it is up to the person who ordered the food to "offer a taste" if so inclined. Having said all this--if my companions and I are "torn" between some dishes then we make some effort to "not duplicate" so we can experience both items.

I had a friend who was both a music lover and a food lover (aren't we all!). His opinion was that any music worth listening to demanded one's full attention. Any food worth eating--the same! I tend to agree, within reason. Enjoying a high tea to the strains of a harp etc is a situation where music and food and drink work together. I must say that my enjoyment of good jazz is hindered by conversations and clinking glasses and I avoid anything that is even close to "Dinner Theatre"! so It depends upon the wine. Having a glass of rose or a simple chardonnay --I am not at all put off by the surrounding hullabaloo. A great Montrachet or a Lafitte --I prefer some good conversation and the gentle sounds of a well designed restaurant. I rarely like to enjoy wine in a hermetically sealed environment. I agree that a really fine complex wine is best enjoyed when one is not distracted. I would agree with the poster who decries the distraction of strong perfume and colognes! Basically any form of "distraction" is unwelcome~! That is why restaurtant design is so important.

The first two (of three) series were funny; there was more "kitchen humor," and Gareth (Lenny Henry) came across as a Ramsayesque - if somewhat less, let's call it coarse - two-star martinet. The third series got to be a little too soap-opera for my taste. The Mrs always compared my kitchen personality to that of the eponymous character... ← Thanks all! I also posted a query in the UK section--also got some great info. You might want to head over there! We should probably get this thread back to the topic of "Cooking Under Fire"!

I would agree. I live in Manhattan have a weekend home in Brewster NY which is near the CT Border and I am frequently in NJ. So I have some familiarity with NJ, Connecticut, Westchester and Putnam counties in NY. I do find it interesting why many people get "worked up" over the Times (maybe it is because they are the Times). I believe that when reading a review of anything it is important to know where the reviewer is coming from and, of course any good reviewer will be consistent! At the moment, I believe the reviewers for the suburban editions, Pat Brooks, CT; MH Reed, Westchester/Putnam (I forget who has NJ and I don't get that edition often enough to really "know them.) are more reliable than Frank Bruni (the reviewer for the main edition of the Times). They have a track record where he does not, and people still seem to be trying to figure him out. So good or bad one really needs to "know" the critic in question. I never rely upon one reviewer --they can pique my interest--but I usually rely on other review sources, on line critiques (Gullet.com for eg), Zagats, local magazines NJ Monthly etc, and the restaurant's own website and best of all --word of mouth from trusted friends etc. Interestingly, you commented about the quality of NJ restaurants--I have eaten at a number of good ones. Recently, some good friends of ours who live in NJ commented that they thought the quality of the restaurants we have taken them to in NY and Westchester was better than that overall of the NJ restaurants they were familiar with. I also agree that Manhattan's very top restaurants have few if any equivalents in the suburbs. But I have eaten very well in the hinterlands!

It's in Old Sac on Second Street and is called "The Spud Shack". They do substitute shredded mozzarella for the cheese curd but the flavour is pretty close to being the same. In fact, the fellow told me that they do the same in their restaurant in Ontario and have no complaints about it. As Lexy said, a heart defibrillator and/or nitroglycerine tabs are optional. At the very least, someone in your party should know CPR. ← \One word: Scrapple!

Bless you Genny!!! I really feel dumb! ("CHEF"- how could I have forgotten that!) I think being a UK endeavor the humor was veddy British!--people generally either hate or love it. There is also the very real (and frightening possiblility that the show is not as good as I remember! (what was the name ????) lol many thanks for the response!

I recall enjoying a UK show on Television here in the US a few years ago(I think it was on PBS). It was sort of a culinary Fawltey Towers and it featured a Black Chef (lilting Carribean accent (I believe) with a beautiful wife who ran a very French restaurant . I would love to get the episodes on DVD is possible but without the name..... Thanks for any help-- I really need to do something to improve my memory--either less wine or more!

Any of the old stalwart restaurants in the Arthur Ave area would be fun. Mario's or Dominick's. A good idea might be to have a pizza (one of the best in NY) at Mario's (they are not on the menu -you gotta ask! Then see the "market" and have some clams etc. also In Manhattan-look to go to one of the old historical places that have local flavor. Old Towne is a great very old tavern with great burgers and hot dogs (they just got a nice mention in the Times for having one of the better NY dogs). Or the Corner Bistro in the Village. Another great experience is going to the Union Square Cafe and eating at the bar! great oysters great wines by the glass--also their BLT if it is still on the menu is superb! and speaking of fish! The Oyster Bar in Grand Central Station is wonderful and talk about atmosphere! The staion is a great attraction by itself. I would look for places that are more neighborhood oriented and that offer atmosphere and food you can't find elsewhere. I love one poster who after making several really good suggestions ---recommended you have a "Philly Steak" sandwich!!!! (trust me you gotta go to Philly for that --not a bad trip for your next food excursion!

"Hell's Kitchen" is a little more original, Ramsay did it in England about a year ago. Personally I would have preferred they copy the original a little more. But then again I'm a brat and would have enjoyed watching Ramsay make D-list celebrities cry. I completely expect the American version to be heavy on the cheese factor. Wonder if any of the contestants will try to form alliances? They always try that, no matter show, no matter how stupid it seems. Anyway. I'm enjoying "Cooking Under Fire" even if my local PBS started this show two weeks later than everyone else. I do agree that it needs to be longer. Half hour may have been easier to sell but it's not really allowing us to care about the contestants much because we're not seeing them enough. ← You may have hit on a flaw in "Cooking Under..." As I noted the real key to these shows are the contestants and their personalities drive the whole thing! Half hour may not be enouh! Loved your comment re: alliances. I do know Ramsey did this in the UK --it is really hard determining the chicken and the egg factor in who was first with these efforts. (it is fun though) Did Jamie's show precede Gordons? I remember seeing some episodes of a look at him trying to open his latest (or one of his) venture with underpriviledged cooking students.? (I recall it was interesting--lots of drama and Jamie was quite the anti Gordon in his approach to them). also maybe you can help my failing memory: I recall a show (I believe it was PBS) about a Chef in the UK (he was Black with a lilting--Carribean? accent) had a beautiful wife and they ran a very French restaurant. A comedy (I think I recall a laugh track) along the lines of Fawltey Towers? I really loved it and can not for the life of me recall the name. I would love to get it on DVD's!!!!

I can't believe I never heard of these guys! I used to drive to Philly on business and would pass through the Pennsauken area frequently. They certainly will be welcome here in NYC. However--and maybe this is a topic for its own thread--I wonder if/when we are reaching a saturation point of sorts for wine retailers in Manhattan.? Will there be a shift from the local neighborhood liquour store or wine "shop" to larger "state of the art" operations located strategically around tyhe island? also with more opportunity to order wine from afar via the interenet--what's the shakeout???

A while back in this thread someone hoped this endeavor would not be "American Idol with a saute station." That was before the show aired, and at that time I thought this was a very good prediction. That is exactly how TV and Film folks think. It is also the language of the "pitch." Lo and behold that is exactly what we are seeing. This is not a show for foodies it is for the masses. PBS is not much different than ABC,CBS or NBC or the Food Network for that matter. Ever wonder why the contestants on Idol are not particularly original or really that good? (my apologies to you Clay Aiken fans)--the real drama is in the criticism and the fact that there needs to be an "everyman" identity factor ("yeah I can sing almost as good as that") combined with the possibility of failure. The selection of the contestants is way more important than the celebrity/hosts and success of the show will depend upon the producers ability to pick the right combination of personalities. (just like "Survivor"). it's really not aboput the cooking! The show is "scripted"/edited for maximum appeal to the broadest audience possible. (duh) Just look at what's coming: "Hells Kitchen" with Gordon Ramsey sounds original no? Anyway--Cooking Under Fire is entertaining for what it is. It has the right mix of sociopaths and egos and the potential for failure and humiliation some (culinary B and D), throw in a touch of technical stuff--"It's got it all!" As for the T. English comments--I am almost tempted to defend him (as if he needs it) "gee it's hard being good looking" but that sounds a lot like "gee modelling is such hard work!" I must say that English's cooking is over the top mediterranean. That is The dishes always sound good but when eating one you wish the chef had left out two or three ingredients. (talk about busy cuisine). Sort of Emeril for "snobby masses". I admire both for their success. and their "devil may Care" approach to garlic. It will be fun to see if Ramsey is complex enough (or the producers allow him to be) to sustain his version of culinary "Monster Garage" (hey how about "Monster Kitchen" ...er sorry that's already part of "Monster House"--gee it's really hard being original! ps remember that kid in school who would eat anything on a dare? "Hey Mikey--see that half eaten baby ruth in the ground over there...." Well he grew up to be more successful than all of us put together he became ....Anthony Bourdain!!!! who knew????

The original post dealt with small farms and farmers who are engaged in sustainable farming. This in itself is an interesting topic and what these farmers are doing is certainly a noble endeavor. However what the poster was really doing was applying a value system to the subject that is based upon a very narrow perspective. As you point out, things are never so simple. I agree. The fact is there is a battle of sorts going on in Northern California (where the original poster resides -I believe). That battle is over land. It is essentially one side that wants to use the land for the growing of grapes for eventual use to make wine vs those who see this as an intrusion into a different way of life. The original poster is obviously "immersed" in this imbroglio to the extent that she is unable to see the forrest for the trees. (or the lettuce for the grapes!) She was "playing" with the definition of "farm" for a political reason--to advance her cause. She was also denegrating those she sees as "the other side" she did this making false assumptions and assigning a value system that made no sense to someone who can look at both sides of the issue. So because she sees "rich" people coming into Northern California to buy land for grapes to be made into wine as "evil" she makes the mistake of oversimplification: She is toying with the definition of farming ( a noble profession in most peoples eyes) because she can not accept that grape growers/wineries are even remotely involved in anything "noble" or honorable! She then goes on to "assume" anyone who is rich is bad and anyone who makes money at framing is less worthy of our respect than farmers who make money. This she does to hedge her original argument that grape growers are not really farmers. So you see, this was never really a discussion of what the definition of farming is nor was it a discussion about small sustainable farms/farmers. It was really a very narrow argument for one side in a dispute that is going on in Northern California. PS: My post was not an "endorsement or acceptance of the abuse of factory workers -again it ain't that simple. Big agribusiness is not inherently "evil" nor are all small farmers inherently godlike. The converse is equally true. Two things should be present for any good debate: perspective, and facts.

Does anyone here agree? Disagree? Original discussion here. This is a myth--or misconception--that I encounter frequently, so I can understand these comments, if not embrace them as a definition of who we are. Should I allow my customers to visualize Dover Canyon as a spreading land grant with untended vines gracefully waving in gentle breezes? It would probably be a smarter marketing move. Actually, I think I will. But I am passionate about the challenges and drama inherent in farming. And I love our farm. I am proud to call our vineyard a "farm." Somehow I don't think we'd ever convince Andrea Sottimano that he's not farming . . . ← What exactly is the point of all this? The dictionary states that "farm: a tract of land used for raising crops or livestock." Simple enough!? That's the accepted definition. If one wants to quibble over livestock vs crops or ranch vs farm so be it. (an apples and oranges thing). Many others in this thread have dealt with the "definition" issue on its elementary level. However-the real point that is being made is: small is good and big is bad, poor is good, rich is bad. "Green Acres" was closer to the truth than some may want to admit. Every day one sees more stories of people who have made money at various professions going off to be farmers (or wine makers). To enter into farming today costs money, land costs money -especially quality farmland. should we look down on these people? In fact it is "wealthy" restaurateurs and their "wealthy" customers who are driving much of the CSA activity and success. Let's not forget that the products from these "small" farms costs money so most of the consumers are--well...well off! Look at Coach --they made their money selling leather goods and "retired" to be farmers. They now produce artisinal cheeses. How about Blue Hill at Stone Barns? If not for the support of David Rockefeller (yeah the guy whose money comes largely from oil) it would not exist. By the way oil is "organic" and it certainly helps farmers via tractors, generators, and trucks to get their produce to market. The argument that it is "nobler" if farmers are poor rather than rich is based in the assumption that a poor farmer is in it to help feed the world is mind boggling. I refuse to believe that these farmers are so altruistic (or maybe they are not really poor). Using this logic a farmer who gives his or her produce away is "better" yet! Also, to place a "value" on a crop or agricultural product based on its value as a life sustaining substance is equally crazy. In that case the rice grower or the manioc grower is "valued" over the fancy lettuce grower. And to further illustrate the illogic--wouldn't the large agribusiness that can produce the most quantity feeding the most people be the most revered? These are the traps in the original poster's definition. In the end--this should be about the quality of food. Not about the bank account of the farmer or the farmer's intent or raison d'etre. or even the size of the farm or whether the farm's end product is wine or onions or herbs or apples or apple cider or applejack etc. We could have a lively debate over "organic" vs non organic. ( I can't tell the difference) or Bio Dynamic vs non Bio.... The problem is--many proponents of CSA's seem to be drawn to the subject because of politics "class warfare" etc. and "listening" to them go on about the "evil rich" and "noble poor" farmers is tiring and pointless. This should be about the food! Anyone who produces something I enjoy eating (or drinking) gets my respect.