Florida

Interesting article. Thanks for the post. I imagine this would dispell Bourdain's "idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away the hospitality" of a foreign guest.

To me, Tiffany's dishes just look boring and uninspired. Of course, I can niether taste nor smell her dishes and I could be, and probably am, wrong about them, but her cooking simply causes me feel so overwhelmingly indifferent and apathetic towards TC.

Are you conversing with Bayless directly about these recipes?

I don't have the recipe in front of me, but the problem lies in it's simplicity. The ingredients are vinegar (I used apple cider), water, cinnamon, clove, oregano, chicken and salt and pepper. There is just nothing there, but the vinegar and the spices; the oregano is totally lost. I keep wanting to compare this dish to a Filipino adobo, and while I realize that is not a fair assessment, at least adobo has the umami from the soy sauce and the fattiness/richness from the pork (which is browned before cooking) to balance out the vinegar. This recipe is just watered down vinegar and spice and that is what the chicken ends up tasting like. Personally I thought the beans helped add the richness the chicken was missing, but the chicken just wasn't very good to begin with. Not to say this recipe couldn't be tweaked. I'm sure it could be, but I think Bayless was deliberately trying to keep this one simple. He even names it "Easy Tostadas," but in this case I believe minimalism did not make for the best final product.

I made this dish last week. I'll admit I found it a little odd myself, but for different reasons. First of all, I thought the escabeche tasted out-of-place without the beans. For me, the beans added a roundness to the spice and vinegary tartness of the chicken and I found the two not only complemented each other, but really needed each other. I was not of the opinion the beans overwhelmed the chicken, but rather I thought the beans help balance out the tartness. Overall, I enjoyed the dish, but wasn't overly impressed by it as I just felt the chicken had an odd flavor: primarily cinnamon, clove, and vinegar. I would say the flavors were more "carribean" than what you'd normally expect as "Mexican," but I also understand this is Yucatecan-Style. Much like yourself, I had a lot of left over escabeche, which I used to make soft tacos. I dumped a bunch of chipotle hot sauce on them to help tone down the tartness. I agree with you that I won't be returning to this recipe anytime soon.

I think that may be reading into it far more than is warranted. I watched the entire show thinking that Angelo's team was going to lose and while I understand this was partially due to editing, I still get the impression they only won because they made less mistakes than the other team. After all it appears TC could have run an entire episode featuring only Amanda, a wood-burning grill, a look of confusion, and a pile of over-cooked steaks. To think how exceedingly bad Kenny's beet salad and goat cheese must have been for her to survive.

I'm talking about both. I don't think that it's unreasonable for "top chefs" to know a few basics (foundational knowledge) about most of the world's cuisines, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they'd bone up a bit on them as they head off to the US center of international diplomacy. I mean, I would. But, hey, this season, I certainly can understand the need to set the bar a bit lower. Understood. Your requests are not unreasonable, but I guess I personally didn't find it as appalling as you may have.

I'm making a slightly different point than those I emphasized in the above quotations. I don't think that contestants should be expert in "every cuisine in the world." But, c'mon: Mexico, Italy, France, Thailand, Spain, Japan, India, China, and Brazil? I daresay that most of the amateur enthusiasts here in the eGullet Society, not to mention every chef I've ever known, would have some foundational knowledge of those key world cuisines. Are you talking about "foundational knowledge" or "doing a little prep?" Also, every one of those countries could have easily been another country. Thailand could have been Vietnam (personally I would have loved to see one of the chef's prepare a vegetarian pho -jk) Brazil could have been Chile. France could have been Germany. To prep for a nationally televised cooking show you'd have to prep for everything. And Brazil? The only Brazilian dish I can think of is feijoada (which I haven't a clue how to make) and while I am positive some smart ass will come behind me with a list of Brazilian foods, I'm sure that the vast majority of us have little, if any, experience with Brazilian food.

-CCB Jai Alai Cedar Aged IPA - Humidor Series: An interesting take on an IPA. Predominantly earthy hops with citrus and pine to a lesser extent. The cedar comes through as a compliment to the earthiness and the lighter malts and is not overpowering -Duck-Rabbit Rabid Duck: An RIS with heavy dark malts, licorice, cocoa and a moderate bitterness, but a heavily roasted, almost burnt flavor that increases along the way. -Brooklyn Sorachi Ace: A saison brewed with the Sorachi Ace hop. Slightly sweet malts on the front, tart apples with a little lemon and unripe pears. Somewhat vinous and a mild bitterness on the finish.

Well Jose Andres made mention that even though the contestants are chefs, they can't be expected to be familiar with every cuisine in the world (or something along that line). And considering the constestants likely had responsibilities such as actual jobs before going on TC, one can't expect them to prep for every possibe chalange prior to the show.

Your point is based entirely on conjecture. Wonder all you want about B's position on Italian Grandmas and pho, but he says nothing explicitly about it. His only example of different rules for different people involves religion, and we've already hammered on this problem. Why does it matter? It matters because it is the principle that is in question, not the opportunity to exercise it.

Horchata “Colada” (p 67) Tastes just like a pina colada except it takes 4 times as long to make. If you like pina coladas, you’ll probably like this, though if you like pina coladas you can save yourself some time and just make a pina colada. While I’m not a huge fan of pina coladas I do like horchata and I thought this would be a nice variation on the drink. I was wrong and, in all actuality, I felt this was a waste of the horchata that is required to make it.

I think you're getting to the most problematic idea in Bourdain's piece. That it's not ok, as he puts it, to "take your beliefs on the road." It's an easy idea to swallow when you're dealing with beliefs presumeably grounded in nothing more than economic privilege, and ones concerning issues like whether or not to eat pho. But taken more broadly it's a troubling concept. As I read it, it could be seen as an endorsement of ethical relativism, and all the ugliness that lurks down that particular rabbit hole. Ideas like, "child labor is wrong back home, but it's perfectly ok here, because their culture accepts it. So I'm going to buy this cool cheap handbag!" Unfortunately the alternative, taken to it's logical extreme, means acting like an activist and a scold at every opportunity ... a good invitation to the Italian grandma to kick your hippy ass (and comfortable shoes) to the curb. Makes me wonder how many Italian grandmothers would will be willing to eat a bowl of pho, which goes back to my point that Bourdain's reasoning is based on applying different rules to different people.

Roasted beat salad w/ red onion, poblano and lime (p159) This was probably one of the most “non-Mexican” Mexican dishes I have ever made. Overall, it turned out to be a very familiar tasting beet salad with the addition of poblanos. Rather sweet and a bit earthy, though it just so happens the poblanos I purchased for this dish were abnormally hot, spicier than your average jalapeno, which was a bit unexpected in the end product. Enjoyable, but nothing spectacular. All of the vegetables were roasted on the grill and I ended up adding the optional goat cheese to tame the poblanos a bit.

Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do? He'll get over it. What the hell does that mean?

Who says they are the only ones? Whether or not he holds other groups to this standard is not stated, and wouldn't determine whether his view on vegetarians is valid or not in any case. This line of argument is just a form of logical fallacy. What??? That must be subtle indeed! But even if that was there (and it would take some leap of faith to see it), it *still* wouldn't invalidate his argument. He could be a Nazi serial killer pedophile and it would have no bearing on his argument about vegetarianism. If you want to say bourdain sucks (or is that a homophobe term?), go ahead, but it doesn't make his arguments wrong. 1)It’s not a logical fallacy. If everyone in a certain population acts in a certain way, why would it be expected that a subset of that population should act in a different way. Look at it this way: If everyone here in the USA stops for a red traffic light, why would there be an expectation that women who travel to Canada no longer stop at red traffic lights. If the majority of the population of the USA would refuse an offering of any food while visiting a third world country, why are only vegetarians being singled out for an activity that the majority of Westerners, whether vegetarian or not, would also engage in. Suppose I was in France. I am walking down the street and someone walks up to me and offers me some chevre. I would refuse it, as I do believe most people would do. Now this chevre might have been “the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience,” but I still believe this act is the norm of our society. My point is that Bourdain can’t single out vegetarians for acting in the same manner as everyone else. BTW, if your really want a logically fallay, try Bourdain's. His would be considered a converse accident. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/converse.html 2) No, it just makes him ignorant. I’m unsure why the homosexual reference was necessary.

Ok, maybe you could quote the passage in question. At first I was wondering if we'd read the same book; now I'm wondering if we live on the same planet. You've already quoted it: "I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation." The term "in comfortable shoes" is slang for lesbian. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=women%20in%20comfortable%20shoes

1) Again, who is to say only vegetarian travelers should be held to this standard? Not to mention if someone was a vegetarian why would they purchase a bowl of pho (with meat) in the first place? Despite the hospitality of the Vietnamese people, from my perspective a "pho vendor" is still in the occupation of selling pho, not giving it away. How is the failure to purchase something a legitimate reason for having such a hatred towards vegetarians? It’s not. It’s just a shitty excuse. 2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags. Because after all, the only thing worse than a vegetarian is a homo, right? 3) “But taking your belief system on the road—or to other people's houses—makes me angry.” To state the obvious, but isn’t this exactly what Bourdain does? Hell, he flies all over the globe to babble about his belief system, videotapes it, broadcasts it to half the world, blogs about, writes books about it, and, well, literally takes it on the road. Of course, I have to invite Bourdain into my home (turn on the TV, purchase a book, etc.), and, yes, that is true. But it is just as true that a vegetarian traveler would have to purchase a bowl of pho and I am extremely doubtful there are vegetarians in this world who have paid their way to go to visit Vietnam just to spend their time there lecturing the local pho vendors on the benefits of vegetarianism.

I think you're just mischaracterizing his position. Bourdain attacks ideologies that present themselves as morally superior, but which don't acknowledge the enormous degree of privilege (mostly economic) that makes them possible. He may invite misunderstanding, to a degree, by using the blanket term "vegetarians" ... when what he really means is vegetarians who bring their ideas stubbornly and self-righteously into contexts that are inappropriate. Yes, there are many vegetarian cultures in the world, and many in which meat is optional. There are others where meat (or fish, or dairy, or whatever) is a matter of survival ... and to refuse it based on ideas you brought with you from the Land of Opportunity or the hippy commune, is just plain arrogant. I'm pretty sure Bourdain has travelled enough to not be constrained by simplistic ethnocentric ideas. And I seriously doubt he cares a bit if you abstain from Burgers while in Northern California. This would have been a well thought out argument. But this isn’t the argument TB makes in the book. No where near it. In all actuality I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly extrapolate this relatively well thought out, though poorly presented, position from what is actually printed in the book. Though it is a bit unclear exactly how vegetarianism comes from a position of priviledge, given that meat is truly the food of the weathly. As for stubborn and self-righteous, I’d say those are two apt descriptions of Bourdain himself. The vast majority of vegetarians never make their vegetarianism known, never mind publish it in a book. Are there stubborn and self-righteous vegetarians out there? Sure, but to stereotype all because of the actions of a few is incredibly ignorant.

No, it's entirely reasonable, since many of the opinions are revisions of ones expressed in his most popular writings. I would assume that anyone bent toward dismissals of Bourdain will not have followed his every interview and essay and tv appearance. If your ideas about Bourdain come from Kitchen Confidential and The Nasty Bits (as mine have), you'll find different ideas here. Which isn't to suggest you'll like them, just that you don't yet know what they are. Straw man argument. Criticize Bourdain all you want. Just don't criticize a book you haven't read. Straw man? Not quite. Again, there is context which I'm simply not willing to ignore. Medium Raw is practically an autobiography. The man is the book. They are unseperable. We're not talking about Gone Bamboo in which Bourdain is just the author where I'm shitting on the book simply because I don't like Bourdain. And we're not talking about a biography where the Bourdain's life is chronicaled through the eyes of person other than Bourdain. Medium Raw is Bourdain. It's about Bourdain and by Bourdain.

I would further note, unlike his criticism of vegetarianism, I found his criticism of Alice Waters to be well thought out and adequately researched. So, while I may not agree with everything he says about her (I agreed with far more of it than I expected to), at least he devotes the time and energy to explain his criticisms of her in a way that is far more eloquent and developed than his criticisms of vegetarianism.

Why does it matter? It matters because it is the principle that is in question, not the opportunity to exercise it. Bourdain’s principle is based entirely off of an ethnocentric viewpoint that suggests that non-Westerners are fully incapable of understanding vegetarianism regardless of whether a tradition of vegetarianism exists in their country or not. It’s a viewpoint that relies entirely on a Western thinking bias. Is it valid? I guess so. Is it incredibly ignorant? Absolutely. This is akin to having a racist justify his racism by noting the number of African Americans in prison. Now suppose someone were to point out that there is also a substantial number of Caucasians in prison as well, but the racist were to say “but I’m not talking about them, I’m only talking about African Americans.” From my standpoint, it can’t be argued that the actions of a small subset can be considered independently from the population as a whole. (btw, this is just an analogy, I am not accusing anyone of being a racist) And for what reason should people with religious reasons be given “more leeway?” Are people without religious reasons incapable of making such decisions about what they chose to eat? Not that it even matters, considering TB specifically mentions Hinduism as a valid reason only to effectively dismiss Hinduism not more than a page or two later. I yes, I do think he is promoting himself as being morally superior, especially considering the lengthy e-mail he sends to his vegetarian friend who had the misfortune of unknowingly sending an e-mail to Bourdain at an unfortunate time. And I am not offended. I just think he presents an exceedingly weak argument to justify his anger towards vegetarianism.

Why does it matter? How many Muslims would refuse an offering of pork? How many Kosher Jews would refuse shellfish? How many "normal" everyday omnivore travelers would refuse an offering of any food, meat or vegetable, from anyone living in a third world country? or even a first world country? TB specifically mentions pho in that section, yet the majority of people in Vietnam identify themselves as Buddhists. Buddhism, for the most part, promotes vegetarianism. How ignorant and ethnocentric is it on Bourdain's part to assume the Vietnamese people are too stupid to understand the concept of vegetarianism when the vast majority of the country practices a religion that promotes vegetarianism. Bourdain seeks to justify his anger at vegetarianism by making it sound as if it some un-natural Western concept, that is somehow selfish or rude, but he willingly ignores centuries of religious practices (ie, cultural practices) while unwittingly suggesting the Vietnamese are so inferior as to be incapable of understanding the concept of vegetarianism. And while I have no evidence to prove this, I can only imagine the Vietnamese people are probably just a bit more upset about America dropping thousands of tons of bombs on their villages (which continue to explode to this day) than they are about a backpacker pushing aside the piece of beef in his bowl of pho. But of course, it’s the vegetarianism that causes him "sputtering indignation." And the same goes for India, where he talks shit about the sanctity of cows. Here he seemingly suggests that Indians are incredibly stupid for allowing their poor people to starve when there is a perfectly good cow standing right there in the middle of the road. How ethnocentric is that? Yet Bourdain promotes himself as the one with the moral superiority?

So the criticism of vegetarianism surprised me. Not because it was so well thought out or nuanced, but because it was so absolutely pointless. Beyond comprehension pointless. Bourdain notes of vegetarians: I'm "not angry at them personally mind you - but in principle." He goes on to indicate the principal being the "Grandma rule" for travelers where you may not like Grandma's turkey, but you "shut the fuck up and eat it. And afterward, say "thank you, Grandma." But he also notes "I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away the hospitality...fills me with sputtering indignation." As if there are gangs of vegetarians roving the world, rudely rejecting the humble omnivore's kind offering of a piece of meat. So the basis of his hatred, or rather continued "genuine" anger, at vegetarians comes from his perceptions of vegetarian travelers possibly, maybe, refusing an offering of meat? Really? Sure Bourdain can hate vegetarians all he wants, but this is the reason why? Think about it though. How many vegetarians in the world are traveling at any one moment. Maybe, if you round up, possibly 1% of all the total vegetarians. And how many of them are actively being solicited with meat? Again, on the high end, possibly 1%. And this is the reason he hates all vegetarians? It's such a weak argument. Absolutely beyond belief weak. So much, so I've read that section of the book four times now, looking for something I've missed, searching for something more. But there is nothing there. Absolutely nothing.

Yeah, that's kind of the way marketing works. When Ford says they're "Number 1" they're implying that all of the other car manufactures are inferior (as in not number 1). And when a company indicates they are "the best" it would imply everyone else is inferior (as in not "the best"). Amazingly no one markets themselves as being "good enough" or "slightly above average" or "most likely won't break before you get it home."