Florida

And this is what I said: Once I said this, Fat Guy decided to break out the semantics arguement. How it is we are "defending everything she has every said at all costs" when you and Fat Guy won't even let a very commonly used (and, for the most part, very accurate) word slide makes me believe it is not I who is the one who is defending my view point ridiculously.

Sounds to me as if, out of all those people, you were the only person who has a problem with the word "chef." Yet you couldn't resist pointing out where everyone else was wrong, while you were right. In our society, the term chef can be applied in a decidedly colloquial fashion to mean anyone "who manages a kitchen." As far as I'm concerned, if the guy who runs the kitchen at Denny's wants to call himself a chef, what do I care? Do I get some benefit at of belittling the guy? Does it even make me right? The term’s usage is vague enough to include even him. Your argument makes me think of Bug Bunny. When he say’s “Whats up doc?” and the ludicrousy of Elmer Fudd correcting the rabbit with a terse “I’m not a doctor.”

I'd say she's neither. She's a restaurateur, activist, philanthropist, etc., but not really a chef. ← Um, okay then.

There have been ample reasons given for criticism against AW. It's not just that people don't like her for some mysterious reason that drives them, beyond reason, to seek out ways to criticize her. The fact is that there's a lot to criticize her for and it's not a secret what these things are. I'm sure I'll get some responses saying that I'm just nitpicking AW, I just don't like her, or that I don't care about education/nutrition/the environment/local farmers/etc. Even if that were true (which it is not), it still wouldn't matter. The question of this thread is: "what's the deal with people's reactions against AW?" I think that's been pretty well covered and moving the discussion to questions about Bourdain or imputing the "backlash" to some unknown unknown that motivates people to dislike her turns away from the point that AW says some things that some people don't like. It's not her principles, it's her manner--the way she chooses to answer questions or talk about problems. Ultimately, I think this thread is not about AW but about how to respond to the complex matrix of problems we face in which economy, the environment, education, nutrition, etc ad infinitum, are interconnected and we know something needs to be done but we're unsure what to do about it. We all want someone with a golden touch who can understand these problems, communicate them effectively, and work towards solutions at a grand level. That person, as far as I can see, has not emerged. The criticism of AW may be a symptom of the fact that these problems such a strong leader but don't actually have one. I give AW credit for all the things she's done (mainly as a very influential chef and local community figure), but she isn't a good public figure on a large scale and she's not what we need right now. I think we need somebody who comes off as practical and down to earth to convey the urgent need to fix the problems that have been developing over the last hundred or so years as a result of the rapid growth of our economy and technology that has, I think, far outstripped our understanding of the consequence of this growth. We, as a collective, are I think just coming to realize that the things we've been doing have tremendous consequences. The trendiness of going "green" needs to be taken advantage of by somebody whose more in touch with the people who aren't already on the trolley. ← Not surprisingly, I’m going to disagree. I think if you’re looking for something to not like about her it’s pretty easy to find. But so what? And, I'm sorry, but some of the comments here are clearly contrived. As I noted previously, I seriously doubt that AW is the anti-education, pro-organic carrot lover slkinsey has made her to sound like. AW says shit people don't want to hear. No matter who gets up and says what she says is going to have detractors. Look at Al Gore. That guy does a lot of good work, but there are people who are going to look at every possible thing he does and spin it in a negative fashion. He even has a Nobel Peace Prize, but that’s still not good enough. He'll always be attacked, if not for one thing, than it will be another. Another example would be Rick Bayless, who has made numerous altruistic contributions, but there are those people who are going to dig out a commercial he did years ago as if this one thing now bars him from making any further contributions. The same is true with AW. She is a chef, not a politician. She is trying to make the world a better place in ways that are relevant to her profession. She’s not perfect. She will have flaws. She will say stupid shit. But her flaws should not be the focus. Unfortunately, they are; they are because there are people who want them to be. I also resent the notion that somehow AW represents all of us. She is one voice among many. Maybe a little louder than most, but I've never considered her my leader on this subject or any other.

In all actuality, any jealousy I have is purely for PTE. Well that and also the convenience of being able to buy a Stone product without having to drive to the next state.

Wow! I said that? It's almost as if someone is putting words in my mouth....

As I pointed out, we already have a Federal program in place to provide a free or subsidized school lunch (and usually also breakfast and snack) to more than 30 million children in the United States, To the extent that this may not be enough for some small percentage of students to mitigate any significant malnutrition-related learning deficits, there are other Federal programs in place to provide assistance to families in need. Do I believe that these programs can and should be expanded? Of course. Tell that to the millions of people in this country who vote for politicians on the basis of promises to not increase their taxation rates. This isn't a problem in, say, Sweden. But I think it is a false argument to suggest that the educational problems and learning deficits in our public school system are meaninfgully caused or contributed to by malnutrition -- and also top suggest that, even if this were the case, that Alice Waters' proposal would have any meaningful effect, never mind an effect anywhere near as meaningful as, say, mandating that elementary school classrooms can not have a student-to-teacher ration higher than 15:1 and providing the financial assistance to make that happen. The point is, I think, that if we're going to radically increase federal assistance to the public school system -- something I generally support -- there are a lot of incredibly pressing needs in line before "free organic breakfast, snack and lunch for every student." - I am not alleging all of our educational problems are a result of malnutrition - I don't believe AW is either - I seriously doubt AW would be a proponent of cutting teacher salaries or limiting other education funds in order to provide additional meals to children. - AW is a chef. She is proposing a solution to a specific problem. Again, I seriously doubt she was making a blanket statement regarding the importance of organic food relative to every other educational problem which exists in this country. My point was, and still is, there are some people who don't like AW who will actively search for, and possibly contrive, reasons why not to like her.

Are they mutually exclusive? No. But, come on! Let's be realistic for a moment here. At some point we're getting into rank apology for some of the things she's proposing. Here is what she said: Now, I grew up in a family of academics. My father has been at major research universities for his entire career. My mother has worked both as a teacher in public schools and at research universities. My paternal grandparents were both educators. My mother-in-law has spend her entire career in public education. I have at least a half-dozen friends who are making their careers in public education. All of which I provide as an indication that I have some basis to know whereof I speak when I say that the educational system of this country is scandalously underfunded and perhaps the worst in the world among "first world" industrialized nations. So, when Bourdain suggests that taking those billions of dollars and putting them into the educational system that we have more children in this country who can read, write, do basic arithmetic, have a reasonable understanding of history, politics, science and the arts before we start talking about spending some of that money on free organic apples in the lunchroom, I am with him 100%. No, they are not mutually exclusive. But, please. Let's get our priorities in order. Reading before free organic food. Given the difficulties we're having in simply getting enough money into the school system to have decent facilities and materials, student-to-teacher ratios below 20:1, compensating teachers well enough to get the best, brightest and most talented educators, etc. -- Waters' vision is pretty far down on my list, and amounts fundamentally to painting gold leaf on the top of the dam while there's water spilling through cracks down at the bottom. This, again, is an example of the ways that Waters and her message can turn people off. I can't imagine what my mother-in-law would think of Alice were she told that they should be rounding up money to serve free farmer's market food in the Junction City, Kansas public schools when there is such a desparate need for more books and teachers and, frankly, all the kinds of things that will simply help them keep the kids in school instead of turning tricks with soldiers from the Army base at age 15. ← I don't believe AW was saying "Organic food is more of a priority than reading" and I think this is one of the primary reasons why people have a problem with her. She says one thing and people begin twisting and turning her comments into something she never said. I get her point: proper nutrition is conducive to a proper education. There are numerous studies indicating proper nutrition aids in learning. A wonderful new book doesn't do a damn thing for a kid who is malnurished. Currently AW is proposing breakfast, lunch, and a snack. However, the Kansas school system already has a way to resolve any issue with their funding. It's called taxes. If Kansas has a problem with their school system, they have the means, but not the will, to fix it.

yeah, yeah, rub it in our faces..... I'd love to try anything from Russian River, but I guess I'd have to fly to CA to get my hands on it. At least I've got access to nice, fresh 3Floyd's (which I don't think is distributed in CA). Like I noted before, Torpedo is a solid beer and SN derserves credit for it, especially considering they do distribute nationwide. I don't think its the new best beer around, but its certainly one worth buying.

I like Spotted Cow, but agree that it is overrated. New Glarus makes a lot of different beers. Spotted Cow is the basic (but good) ale. Woodman's will likely have the full New Glarus line up (including seasonal and one-time creations). But, if you are going to Wisconsin, there are a few other excellent local beers that are not available out of state. I've liked every beer I've tried from Furthermore. ← Yes, NG makes several beers. I'm just not a fan of their work. Personally, in the Chicago area alone, I think Goose Island, FFF, 2Brothers, and Flossmoor all make superior brews. Just my opinion, though. As for Furthermore, I've only had the opportunity to try one of their beers - Knot Stock - a pepper enhanced pale ale, which I thought was quite tasty.

My vote goes to Rio Cristal off Bird Road in Kendall. http://www.riocristalrestaurant.com/ It's a small, hole in the wall type place serving authentic Cuban. More laid back than Versailles, plus the food is better. However, I would note, going to Versailles around midnight on a Friday or Saturday is a lot more entertaining.

First of all, I think v gautam was replying to the original question and was not “attacking the messenger” As for the original question, No, I don’t think Americans reverse the roles of cheap/expensive ingredients. From the excerpt you have provided it is appears Thorne is “cherry picking” his argument. He is making an assertion, presenting that assertion as fact, and then making an argument based off of what is really just an incorrect assertion. The notion that sirloin (or beef in general) is a luxury item is quite antiquated. While throughout history, beef has been prohibitively expensive for most people, our current (American) food system encourages the production of beef in CAFOs with the use of government subsidized corn resulting in beef that is probably the cheapest the world has ever known. Beef is so inexpensive, I would argue the price of a quality bottle of EVOO could easily exceed price of 1 pound of sirloin.

Torpedo is on year round distribution. I don't know why you're having such difficulty finding it. I know the local liquor stores here have cases of the stuff. You can even order it online if you want: http://www.samswine.com/on/demandware.stor...q=sierra+nevada Ever thought about trying any of these? -3Floyds Alpha King or Dreadnaught -Weyerbacher Double Simcoe -Flossmor Station, any of their high-gravity IPA's -Smuttynose IPA -Troegs Nugget Nectar -Avery Maharaja All are qaulity hopped up microbrews.

Wow, considering how cheap they are in the States, I never thought about freezing plaintains. Personally, I would recommend cooking each one at a different stage of ripening so you gain an appreciation of their versatility. And, by the way, they're not fully ripe until they're totally black. If yours are just turning yellow, you have at least a week, if not two, before they'll be entirely ripe.

Are we talking chefs or restaurants? Because eventhough Emeril worked at both, Commander's Palace and Emeril's are nothing alike.

On that basis, you'd have to include Emeril's. ← On the basis of chef fame only, yes. I don't think the food was as revolutionary to New Orleans as Mesa Grill's was to New York City. This could be one of those cases where Flay and Mesa came before the Food Network, whereas the Food Network probably begat Emeril's fame as both a chef and a restarauteur. ← I will respectfully disagree. First of all, if Mesa's food was more revolutionary to NYC than Emeril's was to New Orleans, then that has more to say about NYC itself than it does about Emeril's restaurant. Furthermore, Bayless had already opened both Frontera and Topolobampo before Mesa, so I would suggest those restaurants had already introduced the concept of high end, fine dining, neuvo-Mexican food. Second, in my opinion, for better or worse, Emeril made the Food Network. Also, what about Charlie Trotter's? It opened in '87

Definitely another solid offering from SN, though you might want to check the production date since IPA's are best when they're fresh. Here's the link to deciphering the production code: http://www.sierranevada.com//codehelp.html Also, if you're looking for "wild" beers, you might want to try something from Southern Tier or Dogfish Head.

1) -dogs: --Hot Doug’s (not downtown) --Weiner’s Circle (be sure to go around midnight) -Pizza: --I’m not a fan of the stuff, but Uno, Due, Giordano's or Lou Malnatti’s will all provide adequate examples. -Beefs: --Portillo’s (also has dogs, but they’re not as good as the one’s listed above) --Al’s #1 --both of these have multiple locations 2) It’ll be mild. Actually, probably the best time to visit. 3) No standard breakfast. Pancake houses are popular, but there is no stereotypical Chicago breakfast. With that said, I’ll recommend Orange or Ann Sather for breakfast. 4) The aforementioned Lou Mitchell's has a long counter. I personally don’t think it’s all that great of a place, but considering you’ll be waiting in line to get a seat, it is clear many people disagree. If you’re interested in any of these, just google them. You’ll get a much better idea of the location than I could write in this blurb. Some of these are within walking distance, but you’ll need to cab it to some of the other places (and I suggest you do, because if you limit yourself to the Loop and River North, you’ll be limiting yourself greatly)

I've been reading this thread for the past few days now and I think part of the issue is that everyone is looking for an all encompassing definition for a phrase that is more a concept than a firmly definable word. The phrase "fast food" is going to mean different things to different people. While the general idea behind the phrase is agreed upon, the exact definition is going to be somewhat fluid. Consider the difference between "enhanced interrogation techniques" and "torture." One person's concept of torture might be another's "enhance interrogation technique" and, clearly, people are going to have a very strong opinion about which is which. Please note, I am not trying to bring politics into this discussion, I am simply trying to point out there exist common phrases for which there are not simple black/white, yes/no, definitions. Another example would be music, specifically Jimmy Buffett. I enjoy some of JB's music, but I detest country music. While some of JB's songs are clearly country songs and he does get some radio play on country music stations, I, personally, don't consider him to be a country musician. I don't think this is incorrect nor would I think someone claiming he is a country musician necessarily be incorrect either. Nor do I think JB becomes a country musician when he is playing one song, but then becomes a rock-n-roll musician when he plays another song. JB straddles a line (or, rather, falls into a gray area) between what a country musician is and isn't. I don't see how this would be any different from certain restaurants being considered as fast food when they operate in a manner that is not traditional thought of as being fast food (and vice versa). edited for my atrociously poor spelling

The notion a chef's jacket is somehow the "right" piece of equipment or is more utilitarian than other article of clothing is ridiculous. Anything that can be done while wearing a chef's jacket can be done while not wearing a chef's jacket.

IMO, New Glarus is overated and I wouldn't be making the trip to Wisconsin for it. However, Woodman's has a beer selection that rivals both Binny's and Sam's and you can purchase Stone in Wisconsin.

I have several from back when I cooked professionally, but I virtually never wear them anymore. Just seems like unnecessary pomp and circumstance to put one on for the home kitchen.

Of course this is what I think. It's my opinion. Just like everyone else, yourself included, has their opinion and is expressing what they think. But let's look at this. You note a sellout is "one who has betrayed one's principles" Well Padma is a Hindu. Hinduism holds vegetarianism as the ideal and Padma was, at one point, a vegetarian. Wouldn't religion be a entire set of principles for which to live by? Ones that she has now betrayed? And I'll admit this is a bit esoteric. However, what is the point of a food critic if they're not critical of the food they're eating? Does it not matter now? Does anything go? Why do food critics or experts even bother to exist if they're not judged against their own opinions? And I've got to admit, there are several people here who are saying just this. They are saying Padma is a not a "food expert" and she has no credibility so her selling a fast food burger is more or less in line with her lack of expertise. I can't argue with this, because at least it makes sense. But what your saying is anything goes. Nothing matters. Padma can like high cuisine and low cuisine and anything in between cuisine and since she is just offering her opinion and is not betraying her principles its all okay. That just doesn't cut it. Being a "food expert" holds one to a higher standard, much like a doctor is held to a higher standard in administering medical care. Rick Bayless is also held to this higher standard, and when he hawked BK, he was ridiculed for it. I don't see how this is much different, that is, other than that Bayless has proven himself and Padma never has, though at least Bayless has taken a stance on the issues, while Padma seems content selling herself whenever possible.

Are we watching the same Top Chef? The one I'm watching features such challenges as making meals out of convenience-store food. They have also developed dishes for TGI Friday's or one of those places. Anyway if she was really presenting herself as a "gourmand" in my understanding of the word, a thick greasy burger would be perfect. ← Yes, the true irony of this thread for me is that: 1) One of the reasons I enjoy Top Chef so much is the over-the-top shameless commercialism. I find it amusing. I can't say the words "Top Chef" without thinking of the phrase "Glad family of products" 2) Until this thread I didn't know anything about Padma beyond that she is on Top Chef. I was unaware she was married to Salmon Rushdie (which helps explain the bad taste when it comes to Hardee's), that she had authored any cookbooks, or had any other food shows. Doesn't mean I don't think she's a sellout. I do. But I recognize the fact everyone's got to pay the bills. I will also say this thread encouraged me to cure my own bacon (smoked it this morning) and I will be making a true bacon cheeseburger for dinner. Who knows, maybe I'll even eat it with my tits hanging out.

Padma presents herself as being a "food expert" or "chef" or "food critic." She's had food related shows in the past and currently stars on one. She has two cookbooks. Where do you get this idea that because she's leveraging her assets she can't be a sellout? She has every right to sell whatever she wants. She can earn a living. But when what she is selling (hardee's) is in contrast to what she is selling ("knowledgeable food critic"), I'm going to say the two don't match. And, yes, many chefs eat this crap, but I don't see lot's of chefs selling it. You're a sellout. Noted.