menon1971

I am going to Spokane, WA for a conference in a few weeks and am looking for interesting/eclectic fine dining and places that are local favorites. Any suggestions would be welcome.

You seem to have missed the environmental argument. Where is your data on Norway regarding price (and quality)? I am sympathetic to your concern for the poor, but when is the last time you visited a supermarket in an economially depressed neighborhood? There is considerable body of research indicating a correlation between obesity and poverty. This seems to be due to the abundance of unhealthy foods available to that population, some psychological components of poverty, and a general lack of education. There has to be a balance between making sure that foods are affordable and making sure that everyone can eat as much as they can stomach. The crux is that we consume and waste too much food due to its abundance and low cost. I am not suggesting regulation but perhaps a change in ethos.

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently... On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma... I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go... ← The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture. They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets. They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting. There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention. If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542 I'm sorry to say this is not a joke. Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ... Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program. Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively. HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism. Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net Lynn ← Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn ← But we could treat the animals we eat more humanely and also eat healthier meat. ← We could - to do that we need to retain our right to raise and use animals (from pets to meat) as individuals. Small producers = better quality of meat/eggs/milk Small producers = better quality of life for the animals involved. And small local packing plants (where they exist) produce a cleaner product too as a rule. In real life, between HSUS (and the other AR zealots) and the USDA we are losing the right to choose what we eat. Everybody needs to know how Florida lost its pork production - the more people who know, the harder it will be for them to do the same in the next state. Seems like no big deal to lose one meat animal in one state? How about 5 states? 30 states? Everybody needs to know about NAIS, and if you want to keep your right to local meat sources, and organic beef and range eggs - oppose it. So far as slaughter practises are concerned - dead is dead, and kosher slaughtering is no less humane than any other. A case can be made that it is more humane, and certainly kosher practises insure better hygiene than standard commercial standards. We could use more of that, too. ← Amen. By supporting small producers we promote three things: economic democracy, local accountability, and better quality. Recently I was given a dozen eggs by a vendor at a local farmer’s market because they were told when they entered the grounds that they could not sell the products without due inspection. There should be some standard, but if a farm is recognized as engaging in hygienic practices then I should be able to get my fresh eggs. The eggs were top shelf, by the way.

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently... On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma... I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go... ← The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture. They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets. They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting. There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention. If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542 I'm sorry to say this is not a joke. Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ... Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program. Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively. HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism. Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net Lynn ← Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn ← But we could treat the animals we eat more humanely and also eat healthier meat.

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently... On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma... I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go... ← The practice in my home state (VA) is to first stun hogs (I know, not a Kosher analogy, but a similar process is used with steers I am told) via electrocution then wake the animal by sticking (not slashing as in Kosher butchering) the jugular vein. The animals state of shock causes the heart to beat at a faster rate and thus the animal more efficiently drains itself of blood. I am not sure this is more humane than a clean deep cut accross the throat.

No word on a Last Word, but I have a copy of Irwin S. Cobbs “Own Recipe Book” from 1934 (a year after prohibition ended) and would be happy to look anything up. It is basically a drinking memoir, recipe book, and full on advertisement for Frankfort Distilleries. Quite funny (and offensive) in places – he describes at the bottom of each recipe what the drink did to him. ← I hold Irwin S. Cobb in the same regard as H. L. Mencken, to both men it is not the truth of what is said that matters, but rather the style in which it is said. ← Agreed. I like to read passages (some of the less racist) to friends with a fake KY accent (more like Foghorn Leghorn really).

I think everyone has made their point, but I think this may have ceased to be about ideas.

No word on a Last Word, but I have a copy of Irwin S. Cobbs “Own Recipe Book” from 1934 (a year after prohibition ended) and would be happy to look anything up. It is basically a drinking memoir, recipe book, and full on advertisement for Frankfort Distilleries. Quite funny (and offensive) in places – he describes at the bottom of each recipe what the drink did to him.

I am going to disagree with this as well.. The whole point of chain food is to have food that will never vary from place to place.. Thats why most sauces are premade and come out of containers. All the ingredients require minimal to zero real cooking.. A Applebees in Chicago should taste exactly the same as the Applebees in Ohio.. Thats the chains goal.. ← Without intentionally trying to sound pedantic I would like to say that first, when you eat at a chain most of your money is sent out of the community. Second, most of the foodstuffs eaten at said restaurants comes from outside of the community. We pay for this perceived need for uniformity, or fear of the unknown, economically in that in this equation profits flow out and up. It is economically undemocratic. It is socially undemocratic in that it promotes conformity not individuality. I drove around 5000 miles last summer and although I tried to eat locally, I found myself at the wrong off ramp from time to time or in a town on a Sunday when a lot of locally owned restaurants are closed (especially here in the south). That said, I ate at an Applebees in SC and the food was simply unremarkable. Did it make me ill, no. It was simply phoned in and not that inexpensive. Would I eat at Applebees again, yes, given similar circumstances. However, if the BBQ joint down the street from my motel had been open ........................ A month later I was heading South and was again trying to find a local joint that looked interesting and that was near he interstate. It was about 1:00 and I was starting to get peckish and a little cranky. Then before me was a sign: Stan's Restaurant and Country Store. Funky place – think chain restaurant with stuff on the walls that is actually old and honestly worn. Good BBQ with a nice well balanced slightly leaning toward tart sauce served on Cracklin’ Bread (a corn and crackling pancake - excellent). The greens and beans were also great and served with a grilled green onion. They also cure their own ham. I think the whole meal, with twenty percent tip, set me back a sawbuck. You won’t get that at Applebee’s. My frustration (or snobbery if you like) is that people have become so conditioned into thinking that predictability equals merit that they are simply unwilling to TRY anything foreign. It is a kind of culinary xenophobia. If you taste something and do not like it, fine that’s honest. If you are unwilling even to sample something from an unfamiliar region or individual restaurant, that is closed mindedness at best and cowardice at worst. Through my recent travels I can urge the following: when in Northern Michigan try pasties, eat whitefish and lake trout, fresh and smoked, and enjoy the best cherries in North American if they are in season; when in Virginia eat crab cakes, peanut soup, and salty smokey ham; and when breezing through the South eat all of the regional BBQs, various grit dishes (real grits, not the paste- like “instant” variety), and please do yourself a favor and try the greens and field peas.

There is a local taqueria that has excellent BBQ goat tacos, and the Jamaicans make a curried goat that is fantastic. I had some the last time I was in NYC.

The Williamsburg Art of Cookery is a compilation of stuff, some from the 18th century, some from the 19th, and some just good old fashion VA recipes most of them modern. It is not a reliable historical document.

Well you are correct to see the end game here. This is not about cruelty. It is about placing animals on the same level as human beings which ultimately results--if brought to the logical (illogical) conclusion-- no animals used in any manner for any purpose. Gruel from the matrix it will be!!! If improving conditions at these so called "factory" operations was a goal--then fine. And I for one would like to hear the debate. But this is a war with extremists and debate is futile. By the way--there is actually a "plants rights" philosophy out there right now--today foie gras, tomorrow Purdue chicken and then................. ← I hate to hear the broccoli scream when it hits the saute pan. The horror.

Let's not preach from ignorance on eGullet - please! As discovered by French medical researcher Serge Renaud and reported on the front page of the New York Times on November 17, 1991 ("Can Foie Gras Aid the Heart? A French Scientist Says Yes"), duck and goose fat are mono-unsaturated, like olive oil, and are beneficial to a heart-healthy diet, especially the concentrations found in foie gras. Natives of the region of Gascony, where the basic cooking lipid is duck and goose fat (as opposed to Provence where it's olive oil, and Normandy, where it's butter) were found to live well into their 90's and hundreds, all the while spreading congealed duck fat on the bread that they accompany the foie gras with, which is what led to the investigation of the composition of the fats themselves. The next time you take your Omega-3 capsules, you should eat a slice of foie gras or a duck leg confit as well. So let's end the comments that foie gras is bad for you, and talk about making it mandatory in school lunches instead. ← Just for the record: Goose and duck have 57% and 49% Mono-unsaturated fat, 11% and 13% Poly-unsaturated fat, and 28% and 33% Saturated, respectively. They both have 22 mgs. of cholesterol per ounce. Olive oil has 74% Mono-unsaturated fat, 9%, Poly-unsaturated fat, 14% Saturated, and no cholesterol. I would also like to see the data concerning the average mortality rate being above 90 years of age in Gascony.

I disagree with you in some respects. Let people eat whatever they want to eat - and let restaurants serve whatever they want to serve if it's legal. And if states want to ban or restrict or regulate the killing of certain species of animals for reasons like possible extinction - that is up to the states - but restaurants should be free to serve what's available. Shouldn't have beans to do with whether the stuff is mass market - or for the "upper classes" either. And I reckon if a state decrees that a particular way of raising an animal is cruel and unusual punishment - well it's up to the states to decide that. I don't know - which is worse - a calf kept in a veal cage or a force fed duck (if indeed - either is "bad")? What about kosher methods of slaughter? Or how chickens are raised for the most part? On my part - I don't eat much of this stuff these days - mostly because I'm an older lady now - and it's not great for me. But I'm not religious about it. And I don't have that - anything most people eat is bad - but what we serve in high end restaurants is ok - attitude. I'm quite sure that a big meal at a 3 star restaurant is every bit as bad - if not worse - for me - than a meal at the proverbial Olive Garden. Anyway - I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)? Like transfats? And how does state regulation of foie gras production differ in any way from state regulation of transfats - or how you can turn baby cows into veal? Robyn ← The point I was trying to make is that it is easier for politicians to vilify foods that are less familiar to the general population than it would be to propose a ban on something ubiquitous. I think back to when the FDA had raw milk cheese in its sights. Let’s face it, most Americans would support a ban on Livarots before industrial chicken. I agree that if it is legal then it should be offered to whomever is willing to pay for it.

I agree with the general disappointment, but to be honest Applebees is one of the least offensive “off-ramp” choices when interstate traveling. I usually go for a local joint if I can find one, but any port in a storm.......................

You all are all killing me here! I agree with the NY strip person, for I feel that its has some of the good qualities of all of the other steaks. But I also love duck breast, and ribs, and braised pork that falls off the bone as in a good cassoulet..........................

Well, I agree with all of that, but yelling "Doomsday" is still excessive. ← Yup - particularly when it's about the only food ban people who I would consider liberal are up in arms about. Ban Chilean seabass - fine. Swordfish - ditto. Transfats (all those delicious Crisco pie crusts) - out of here. Not to mention the tons of people who are squeamish about the way veal is raised. Or the reaction to people who actually own guns and shoot animals to eat them. Etc. You lie down with dogs - you get fleas. I'm surprised that the foie gras fighters are this late coming to the liberal "we shouldn't eat it so let's ban it" party. FWIW - I think that D'Artagnan can move somewhere in the southeast and do just fine if they're shut down in New Jersey. Robyn ← First off, I would welcome D'Artagnan to move to AL. (Don’t they get most of their foie from NY, and if so why are NY restaurants not buying it from the source – just asking?) Second, this may be a "liberal" issue of sorts, but this really does not fall within the political parameters of classic liberal issues like, say, poverty, racism, sexism, and equity issues of various stripes. This is sadly a topic that should, in governmental discourse, pale in comparison to the former, and thus be a secondary concern to human oppression. The real question regards broad standards of how animals should be treated in a decent free democracy. To anthropomorphize ducks is simply faulty logic, for ducks do not possess the same choices in life as humans or the same emotional capabilities. If we were beating them with sticks for amusement that would be one thing. However, if they come when called to eat the fatted gruel, this bespeaks to something less than abusive. I think the way much veal is raised would be a better example of agribusiness treating animals poorly, but this would have less appeal for more people want to eat huge portions of scallopini over pasta at Olive Garden than fatty liver. My two cents: let us try to raise animals more humanely, eat better meat (foie included), and eat smaller portions.

Hard to pick just one, but I would have to say Theakston's Old Peculiar.

Well played. Point taken. Alright, I'll admit it, I have a snobbish side. However, I am not above food pragmatism, i.e., what’s in the cabinets kind of cuisine. It is not so much that I look down upon those who eat at chain restaurants, etc., but that I think the key to approaching food is to try, e.g., just eat one oyster and if you honestly don’t like it don’t have another one. If at the bottom of the off ramp you see a busy local BBQ joint and a Bob’s Big Boy which do you choose? I’m going with BBQ every time. Does there have to be an either/or between the honest enjoyment of pithy TV or a good hot dog and an appreciation of independent cinema or haute cuisine? I hope not. Would you think any less of me if I said classical music on NPR through vintage Advent speakers? ←

Time for a little perspective! Right now, somewhere there are audiophiles decrying the low taste (or lack thereof) of the hoi poloi who listen to poorly made CD's on third rate boom box's and distorted mammoth surround sound systems. Also at this very moment, there are groups of people who are deriding the poor uninformed dolts who are driving Toyota Camry's (don't they realize that they can get a vintage BMW 2002 for the same price?). and there are folks who are wondering how anyone can go to the movies these days (it is not "cinema" anymore since the sixties). Like stephen king novels? well that isn't literature! You are obviously a small step above comic book freaks. Sign your checks with a parker ball point and not a limited edition blah blah blah??? This game covers a lot of territory! It is all well a good to be a connoisseur--a gourmet (or gourmand) or whatever. It is quite another to look down on those who do not share your passion. By the way--what are you listening to? ← Well played. Point taken. Alright, I'll admit it, I have a snobbish side. However, I am not above food pragmatism, i.e., what’s in the cabinets kind of cuisine. It is not so much that I look down upon those who eat at chain restaurants, etc., but that I think the key to approaching food is to try, e.g., just eat one oyster and if you honestly don’t like it don’t have another one. If at the bottom of the off ramp you see a busy local BBQ joint and a Bob’s Big Boy which do you choose? I’m going with BBQ every time. Does there have to be an either/or between the honest enjoyment of pithy TV or a good hot dog and an appreciation of independent cinema or haute cuisine? I hope not. Would you think any less of me if I said classical music on NPR through vintage Advent speakers?

The article does sound as if it was written with some irrational vitriol (although I confess that I believe the personality in question represents a negative turn for American food culture). I picture a lonely man sitting on the floor with a lap top and a bottle of cheap scotch typing away under a bare bulb....... For a more balanced take on the FN and Ms. Ray you may want to check out the topic started by jamiemaw on Bill Buford's recent New Yorker article.

Enjoyed (as much as I could given the implications) the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do not have cable, but scan the FN whenever I stay with friend or in hotels and find myself increasingly changing the channel. (I do watch reruns of Child and Pepin on PBS when I get the chance). The demographic they are targeting is sadly not those who really like good food, or the pleasure of preparing good food. My guess is that these are people who eat at chain restaurants, like big portions, nonthreatening flavors, and as little contact with sharp things and raw ingredients as possible. May I be so bold to propose a change in terminology for those who really like food and its preparation – the people who actually know how to hold a chef’s knife, are not afraid to bone a duck, truss a chicken, try variety meats, eat seafood that is not salmon, tuna, or flounder and that might not be cooked well done, like assertive flavors, and in generally seek out the unfamiliar and the foreign. I think the term “foodie” now most describes the folks who reflect the values of the former group rather than the latter – people who attend cooking classes that look like time share condo sales retreats and who would rather not know how that bacon ended up on their table. Perhaps gourmand, gourmet, gastronome, and epicurean better serve to describe those in the latter category. Just food for thought...............

I have a Messermeister 17 pocket that works well.

I am certainly sympathetic to choice, and people knowingly harming themselves should perhaps not be a subject of legislation. However, this does not change the fact that many of our nation’s children are morbidly obese. It is one thing to speak of the choice an adult makes to frequent a restaurant that serves huge portions of nutritionally questionable food, it is another to suggest that children (or their parents) will always make the choice that is best. Also, let us not deny that fast food corporations spend millions to help us make the choice that is best for them. So I guess the real question is how do we assist people in making the best dietary decisions concerning their health. Additionally, it should be stated that these decisions also affect our economy in terms of workforce output and the overall cost of heath care.

Are you sure that it does not say "BRESWICK?" Nice knife at any rate.