foodboy

"Reasonably" is the key word here. Is it reasonable that everyone who enjoys smoking in bars must lose that privilege because a much smaller group of people refuses to find work elsewhere? Again, the answer to this is entirely subjective (as most laws are), and nobody can "prove" it, one way or the other. For me, one difference between a bar and say, an office building, is that smoking is part of the core activity that defines many bars. Especially cigar bars. Should they be illegal, too?

Why would we want to ensure that people can work in a smoke-free environment, other than the fact that smoke is unhealthy?

while many different facets of this discuss have been presented here, i don't hink anyone would agree with you on this summary. and i really didn't follow your most recent follow. perhaps you could expound a bit on why a stuntman's profession should not be legal. also, please consider discussing how a restaurant is different than say, a sandwich shop, regarding smoking legislation. Tommy, I don't think the profession of stuntman should be illegal. My point is that if a person favors legislating against unhealthy work environments, he/she should consider how widespread that legislation would have to be. Perhaps my summary of the argument is incorrect. I hope it is, since it's an argument I consider to be flawed. My question, then, is if people are not suggesting that unhealthy work environements should be illegal, then what are they suggesting, when they point out the harmful effects of smoke on bar employees? As for the difference between a bar and a sandwich shop, the difference is entirely subjective. Most people don't spend entire evenings in a sandwich shop, so that may be one reason why smoking need not be allowed there. There may be several other reasons, but these distinctions are more gray than black-and-white. Law, by it's very nature, is subjective, despite what people may think.

Tommy, it simply does. Whether the unhealthy environment is created by someone "walking in", the employer, or the nature of the work itself is relevant. It still has the same detrimental effect on the employees, which is the issue here. Otherwise, the proposed law would only forbid patrons from smoking in the bar.

I've been to Le Bernardin once and had the dinner tasting menu (the more expensive one). It was an excellent meal, but there are two fish dishes I've had at Gramercy Tavern that are better than anything I had at Le Bernardin. I wonder what it would be like if Tom Colicchio opened a seafood restaurant.

Seems to me that one of the main arguments here is that unhealthy work environments should not be legal. Let's consider the following people who will be out of work if this logic prevails: Anyone who experiences stress in the workplace Boxers Race car drivers Restaurant critics (lots of unhealthy meals!) Anyone who works irregular shifts (studies indicate this is unhealthy) Commercial fishermen Gas station attendants Pizza delivery employees Livery drivers Stuntmen etc, etc, etc Notice, I didn't mention cops and firemen, since their work is critical to the safety of others. The bottom line is I'm starting to wonder what country this is. Nobody forces anyone to go to a bar or work in one.

My family recently found a bunch of old bottles of whiskey and stuff from the 40's and later. Does anyone know where I could find out if any of this stuff has collector's value? (besides e-bay)

Their sorbets are pretty amazing, too! Especially lemon and raspberry.

Liza, Speaking of Katz's, I've always enjoyed their matzo ball soup the most, because the broth seemed richer, heartier. It was almost as if it was a beef broth, instead of chicken. Is that possible?!! Or would this be sacrilege?

Thought on Vong: If you don't mind that the food doesn't compare with the other restaurants you mention, it has a really striking atmosphere. Sort of like what I'd imagine an Asian palace to look like. You might also consider the Tasting Room. Cramped seating, tiny room, but EXCELLENT food, and very friendly, personalized service from Rene, the chef's wife. It would make an interesting contrast to other places you've mentioned and the food is probably on par with any of them. The food can be served in regular-size or "tasting" portions, which allows you to sample many dishes. As for the local element, the menu changes frequently, as the chef (Colin Alevras) is said to take advantage of fresh, local ingredients available at the time.

I was there in January and had an excellent Chilean sea bass on a lemon-flavored rice, topped with a great tomato-based sauce (it was a special). Have these changes occurred since then?

Come to think of it, I had seared tuna, not tartare.

I'm with Pan on this one. Great atmosphere, not so great food. I had the tasting menu. Coconut-based soup and tuna tartare were excellent. The squab could not be cut with a knife, and everything else was so-so.

I know this has nothing to do with the original point, Ruby, but Lex in the 20's is now filled with nice restaurants, expensive apartments and prostitutes.

Old Granddad is not exactly a fine spirit, but would a bottle from 1974 have any extra value, or is it still just cheap whiskey? Is there a place where I could look up these sorts of things?

Thank you, both! I didn't expect such an extensive response, but the more info, the better!

Does anyone know of a place in central jersey that does weddings for 150+ people, but serves Chinese food?

I don't remember the exact name, but it's something like "Pizza 33". I don't know if they deliver, but I've had several very good slices. If you like a thin, crispy crust, I recommend it. To me, pizza is mostly about the crust.

Northeast corner, 33rd and 3rd.

The dirtier, the better. I especially like it when my plates and silverware are dirty, and the staff lacks personal hygiene. This tells me the emphasis is on food, not on trying to impress me.

I'm considering a dinner for three to Babbo. It will be our first time there and likely our last for quite a while. On one hand, I'm tempted to try the tasting menu, since I enjoy them, but on the other hand, will I be missing out on some of the "must have" dishes? Maybe the tasting menu is better for return visits, after having tried the "signature" dishes. Another consideration is that if we order a la carte, would most of the items be conducive to sharing for three people? Any thoughts?

I enjoyed one at Cafe Boulud, but it's the only one I've had, so I can't compare

Would Esca be a good place for three people to eat if they are interested in sharing a variety of dishes? I understand the crudo can be ordered as a sampler for as many people as there are at the table, so that should be easy, but what about pasta and entrees?Would they be flexible about splitting dishes into thirds?

Maybe "spinoff" is the wrong word, but I think I heard something about a Nobu chef opening a place in the West 10's or 20's. Does anyone know about this?

I lunched at Nobu in December '99 and had an exquisite meal. The black cod with miso and squid pasta were particularly impressive. Then, I had dinner at Next Door Nobu in Autumn '00 and Spring '01. By most accounts NDN is as good as, if not better, than Nobu. For some reason, though I was less impressed with each visit. While the toro tartare with caviar and new-style sashimi were wonderful, the cod and squid pasta didn't seem as good as I remember. (I should have ordered the Omakase, but each time I was dining with Nobu newcomers) I can't decide whether I simply became jaded (after just one visit) or if these dishes have actually declined in quality (they also seemed smaller, but I can't be sure). Any thoughts? P.S. Although Nobu (and Japanese restaurants in general) is not known for dessert, I swear that the citrus cheesecake is one of the best desserts I've ever had. Maybe I'm just weird.