mogsob

NY Times on Robuchon There was something about the review that was gnawing at me, other than the immediate hunger pangs it brought on. Then I hit on it. This place sounds positively . . . Italian. Could it be that the master of haute cuisine has created a restaurant that is fundamentally Italian (even if it does serve eclectic/French food)? And, if so, what would this do to the Maxim of Steve P?

Ah, to eat like a pig and drink like a fish . . .

I will go out on a limb here and attempt to answer these questions: a. Entrecote is what is generally referred to in the States as a ribeye steak (i.e., no bone). It has nothing to do with a proper rib steak. b. Cote de boeuf is a rib steak, and generally cooked as roast beef in the English style. I had a fab cote de boeuf at D'Chez Eau a few weeks ago -- they brought the entire roast to the table and sliced off as much as you wanted of the most superb roast beef I have had in a very, very long time. No Yorkshire pud though. c. Faux fillet is a sirloin steak cut to approximate what is called a filet mignon in the States. d. A contra fillet is a sirlion strip (I think), although the name would appear to suggest something along the lines of a shell steak.

This post confirms the end of French culture as we knew it. I've never been so depressed. Please tell me that the models were at least petulant.

I lived in DC from 1995 to 1998. The two -- and only two -- restaurants I miss are Cashion's (Adams Morgan) and Obelisk. Particularly the latter.

Well, I was going to say any American lager ties for worst beer ever (Bud, Miller, the various lights, Coors etc. all taste the same, which is to say that they have no taste whatsoever). At least the cheap beers (Schlitz, PBR, Best, Old Mil, Schafer etc.) give you the runs the next day, confirming that you actually did drink beer instead of water. A pox on all mass produced lagers. But then I saw the Corona post, and had to agree. Downright nasty.

For me, summer is cocktail season: traditionally, mint juleps, but now more likely to be Pimms and lemondade. As both of these cocktails can be served colder than wine, I find them more refreshing. But, back to the subject at hand. Most of the white wine that I drink comes from the Loire. Sancerre is a great wine all-year round, crisp enough for summer, but full enough for winter. I currently have some good Sancerre from Domaine la Moussiere (12.99 at Waitrose) in my rack. As the weather heats up, I generally start drinking more Muscadet, which is always very crisp. So long as the wine is sur lie (thereby ensuring a more minerally flavor), I don't have much of a preferrence, as I drink Muscadet so cold that taste variance becomes almost a moot point. But my favorite drink for summer is a wine cocktail I read about in the Times (dubbed a Provincial Sunset). It is made exactly like a kir, but substituting a good dry rose for white wine and creme de peche for creme de cassis.

As the above posters have correctly noted, claret = red bordeaux and not pinot noir. As production methods have drastically changed over the last century, you are unlikely to find a claret such as those drunk by English gentlemen of the late Victorian/Edwardian eras. That said, Waitrose sells a wine called "Good Ordinary Claret", which would be a cheap (3.99, if memory serves) and cheeky way to pay off the debt. You could also spring for a first growth (at about 100 pounds per bottle) or something in between (like Gruaud Larose, at about 40 pounds per bottle).

MY GOD MAN. Jack Daniels is Tennesee whisky, and therefore not fit for human consumption. A true mint julep can only be made with true Kentucky bourbon (where you not paying attention to the General?). To those who would compare the mint julep to the Old Fashioned, I would say that you have never had a true mint julep, which is nothing like and Old Fashioned. Properly served in a small silver cup, the mint julep is a reminder of a long-lost age when men drank in linen suits and women swooned in the late-afternoon sun. No mere drink this -- a properly made mint julep is nothing short of a means of time travel. As for the Negroni -- now that is a fit comparison, for as the mint julep can transport you in time, the Negroni can transport you to Rome, which is also a very good thing indeed.

President Chirac has reportedly sent a half case of 1989 Mouton Rothschild to Tony Blair for his birthday. A hidden message perhaps? Berry Bros. tasting notes are as follows: 1989 Ch. Mouton-Rothschild, Pauillac Classic Mouton with a nose of cassis and lead pencil shavings and a lush, oaky, concentrated palate. Approachable now but will keep for the next 20 years. Hmmm.

There is a difference. Smoking necessarily forces others to inhale their smoke. While smokers claim that nonsmokers have a choice, the reality is that nonsmokers have the choice to either smoke by proxy or stay home. That, simply put, is not fair. Oh, and one can eat at Rules only so many times. I also don't agree with the analogy to automobiles, which for many are a necessary means of transportation. Smoking, by contrast, is not an essential activity. But, for what it's worth, the same condition that makes me unusually sensitive to smoke also prevents me from driving. I do not own a car, and have never owned a car. Moreover, I live (both in NYC and London) in areas that enable me to use mass transportation (which, by in large, are electric trains).

The studies did conclude exactly what I said they did. I cited them as support for my argument that there is no proof of the supposed economic harms of smoking bans. I never said there was causation. But that is semantics -- to the extent my argument was unclear, my subsequent post clarified my statement. But the more interesting point is the free market issue you bring up. Despite the fact that a majority of NYers supported banning smoking in restaurants, it took a law to make it happen. That's responsive democracy at work. The same thing is going on with the new smoking ban. The problem with the free market theory is that it assumes that restaurant/bar owners respond perfectly to the market. Well, just take a look around to see the flaws in that theory. Restaurant/bar owners do not always operate in a logical manner. Sometimes, regulation is needed to push them in the right direction. As for the health issues, while the merits of the second-hand smoke risk are indeed not altogether clear, there is no doubt that bartenders in CA are feeling much better. CNN Article

So much to respond to . . . 1. I tried to appeal to political theory, but failing that, let's turn to law. Smoking bans, passed by the legislature and signed by the executive, are presumptively legal unless they violate a consitutional right. There is no consitutional right to smoke in public. End of story. 2. Your appeal to tyranny of the majority is specious at best and, just like my post, and appeal to political theory. The Court's civil rights jurisprudence IS the sole check on majority excess in our government. We have made a political judgment in this country not to infringe on certain rights -- the right to smoke in public is not one of them. 3. If you read my original post, I never said that smoking bans spur economic growth. I cited the California studies only to show that the argument that the smoking ban will have a negative economic effect is without merit. Certainly, causation has not been established. But there is a correlation here -- particularly among staff working in bars in California, who have displayed a dramatic reduction in health complaints since the ban went into effect. But the point is that those who oppose the NY smoking ban have not cited any statistical studies in their defense. They just make conclusory statements based on irrational addictions or fears. 4. While this is not a place to discuss the dubious merits of the Chicago school, I'm sure we can all agree that the US markets have been subject to heavy regulation for at least the last 100 years. Free market theory went out with Adam Smith, and with due respect to Uncle Milton, free market economics is a nice theory, but not so good in practice. This is really turning into a very interesting debate, no?

The greater good must be the focus of all reasoned policy-making in a democratic society. The rights of the minority are adequately protected by the Constitution. Surely, this must have been made clear to you in a basic political science class. The legislative branch in our government is designed to respond to democratic urges -- and thus reflect the desires of the majority (here, non-smokers). To the extent minority rights are trampled, smokers/business owners etc. have the right to appeal to the courts for protection. As such, tyranny of the majority is checked in the US by the courts' enforcement of consitutional rights. And your pithy comments comparing my stance to Hitler, Stalin, Rumsfeld, and Moses do not change the fundamental policy point here -- banning smoking is good policy, as it drives down health care costs without any offsetting costs associated in lost business profits to bar/restaurant owners or lost tourism (see the California studies). I'm sorry if this policy ends up putting some people out of work, but in the final analysis, that outcome is a whole lot better than putting many more people in a grave.

Le Dauphin is restaurant I'm always hesitant to recommend, but it's one to which we return for some very solid, sometimes exceptional, cooking at very reasonable prices. For convenience factor, it makes the Sunday list (where the pickings are slim, as you know). I wouldn't choose to dine there any other night of the week. That said, the last time I was at Le Dauphin, about a year ago, I had an exceptional rack of lamb, which was promptly followed by a soggy baba au rhum. I will also note that Lebby, who is a pretty good authority on bistros, gives Le Dauphin his highest rating.

Talk about hitting below the belt. While I don't pretend to have all the answers (just a large percentage thereof ), it seems that the pro-smoking lobby as eschewed statistical data in favor of anecdotal evidence. The problem is that the pro-smoking lobby is trying to make a macroeconomic point, but relies entirely on evidence best suited to a microeconomic analysis. A broad policy such as this deserves full macroeconomic treatment -- the policy will be a success if on balance, restaurants and bars do not lose money. The fact that some -- and perhaps many -- businesses will suffer is really besides the point. The greater good is what is at issue here, and by focusing our lens to narrowly, we lose sight of this.

Another positive: NYC will be both smoke and B&T free!

The combination of young tannins and high acid can produce a noticeable drying effect in the mouth that I guess could be described as chalky. By contrast to the textural tasting note you discovered, St. Juliens are notable for a pronounced terrior in their better wines that has been described as being not unlike the flavor of chalk (which of course begs the question of what these critics have been eating with their wine).

So many wagging tounges, so little reason or knowledge: 1. Independent studies conducted in California have concluded that the statewide smoking ban in that state (a) has resulted in a net increase in tourism, (2) has resulted in increase profits for restaurants, and (3) has not effected bar owners one way or another. While NY is different than California in many respects, the opponents of the NYC and NYS smoking bans cannot present similar evidence to support their arguments. The message here is simple: smokers are a minorty, who engage in a filthy habit that by its nature affects others. When smokers are forced to abandon their habits in public, those public spaces (be they offices, restaurants, hotels or bars) benefit. 2. Since the introduction of the CA smoking ban, the rate of heart attacks in that state have fallen dramatically. Given the close association between smoking and heart disease, it is not unreasonable to believe that the smoking ban has, in fact, had a positive effect health-wise. 3. The idea to create both non-smoking and smoking bars is remarkably naive. How is this going to happen? Are certain bar owners going to be forced to convert to non-smoking, or is it a voluntary thing? Banning smoking is an all or nothing proposition. Either it is banned in all bars and restaurants or in none (those pesky constitutional rights and all). 4. Mr. Bourdain's study of one bar is simply not compelling evidence. Nice story (particularly that bit about the single mom and all), but totally without merit from a statistical point of view. The fact is, the NY smoking ban is here to stay. Smoking bans will continue to be enacted throught the US and Europe. Indeed, a smoking ban is going into place in Ireland this summer and is being debated presently in the UK. As I see it, banning smoking in public places can only be a good thing. The rights of the majority non-smokers have finally been protected by law. Food-service and bartending staff no longer have to fear that their jobs put them at risk from second-hand smoke. Moreover, by giving people fewer opportunities to smoke socially, so-called social smokers will smoke less often and fewer people will start smoking.

You know, it never occurred to me that I could protect myself from SARS by avoiding Chinese food and Chinatown in general. Silly me. Here I thought that avoiding being coughed-upon by a feverish person in a province outside of Shanghai would be sufficient, given the rate of infection and the means of contamination.

Assuming I'm not too late . . . Le Dauphin Benoit Grizzili Cafe Vieux Bistro Brasserie de I'lle St. Louis Le Languedoc Le Reminet Rotisserie du Beaujolais Aux Charpentiers La Fontaine de Mars Chez Andre L'Assiette Brasserie de la Poste

Not to beat a dead horse, but unless someone has spat their Big Mac at you, your analogy is in no way on point. I don't care about the health issues. I love alcohol, butter, cream, beef etc. That is simply not the point. Smoking has an external component, namely the smoke. Now, GOD FORBID, a smoker walking down the street should exhale directly in front of them -- they would NEVER do this, of course, because the smoke would end up in their face. So, as I said above, they turn their head and blow the smoke to the side or behind them. And many, many times, it ends up in MY FACE instead. Which causes me to cough and my eyes to tear, none of which is pleasant, and due to the fact that I wear specially made contact lenses, somewhat dangerous. Any decent society would label that an assault and haul these people off to jail. And lest you think I'm joking here, I'm not. If you want to keep up your replusive habit, fine. Just find a way to do so that the smoke doesn't end up in my face.

I had a very nice meal at Bastide Odeon last year -- very good wine list there as well -- but the decor is rather internationally bland. I love traditional bistros, and in that regard recommend Chez Gramond and D'Chez Eau enthusiastically. In fact, I will be at both in the next 72 hours!

MobyP -- I agree with Bux that to no fault of the restaurant, a mushroom could have easily slipped into the stock, but also with FG that the restaurant should have done something price-wise out of good will. Really shocking that they did not do so (or at least offer you something price-wise on a return, like comping your wife). While perhaps not Ducasse, Roussillon in London (SW1) currently is making Ducasse's Baba au Rhum paired with a glass of finely aged rum. I'm not a fan of rum babas, per se, and ordered this one more out of getting a glass of rum (which sounded, and indeed tasted, quite good at the moment) and trying the famous Ducasse recipie. The baba was extremely light compared with others I've had in Paris bistros (including a baba singled out by Lebey), but ultimately tasted like caked soaked in liquor -- not my thing.

Mediocre or just less distinctive? An area with a higher quality average, but less character? Perhaps all of the above. Great wine must be distinctive, with a firm sense of terrior. If all you wanted in a wine was a well-balanced tasty beverage, your average table wine would do the trick every time. Coincidentally, that is why table wines were invented in Europe. The New World seems to have missed the boat between jug/box wine and fine wine.