Jump to content

pogophiles

participating member
  • Posts

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pogophiles

  1. I celebrated the receipt of my official eGullet T-Shirt (for finishing 1st in maggiethecat's fusion cuisine episode of the "Literary Smackdown") by making an all eGullet recipe dinner:

    Pasta Bible Pasta, Pancetta-Embossed Chicken & Roasted Cauliflower. Followed with a cheese plate and fruit. The visiting in-laws were impressed anyway... :smile:

  2. Good job Holly! All I can add is that a brown paper bag works much better for soaking up the grease on fried chicken when you remove it from the pan. And I loved the following as it describes my cooking environment perfectly:

    Uncluttered surface areas are scarce real estate anywhere in my house, especially the kitchen. I take a few minutes to load up the dishwasher and otherwise clear-cut sufficient workspace.

    Love it!!!

  3. "This is offal", instructed Jim, plopping a small bite into the waitresses mouth and noting, not for the first time, the robust swelling under her nametag (all over, in fact), waiting for the inevitable "Yep" in reply and cursing the fate that caused him to long ago lose his sanity and his sense of humor -- perhaps becoming the executive chef in charge of hauteing the cuisine at "Waffle House" was not panning out as the smooth career move he had envisioned, but then surely someone had to commercialize the "offal omelette" -- why not him?

  4. It’s simple – if a person graduates from culinary school they’re a chef. Same as if a person graduates from med school they’re a doctor, from law school they’re a lawyer, from clown college, they’re a clown.

    Graduating from law school doesn't make one a lawyer, passing the bar exam does... And there are always lots of clowns around, degreed or otherwise...

  5. I agree with Fat Guy on this one. I always pan fry in a cast iron skillet in Crisco with a bit of bacon grease added until the crust is a dark mahogony brown. The crust is shatteringly crisp when still hot from the pan and remains relatively so when cold. I much prefer it to deep-fried commercial chicken. That being said, I think the problem with eating commercially-prepared, deep-fried chicken cold is not the effect of the deep-frying itself -- rather, it is the propensity of purveyors of this type of chicken to coat the chicken in too much cheap batter that causes the problem. That thick hard shell of coagulated crust is just nasty, IMHO...

  6. There is a small elite(not necessarily an economic elite) which gives importance to eating but for the great majority it is just fuel. Second there are only a few cities where good restaurants are concentrated but the vast majority of the country is a culinary wasteland. I lived in New Jersey in 93 at Princeton and we could not find a decent place to dine out.

    One thing that I would like to point out in response to this post:

    There is a very large segment of the US population which is being overlooked in this analysis. Millions of Americans living in small towns across this country devote a significant amount of time to planting gardens and to fishing and hunting. The popular conception in the media is that this activity is a hobby, more akin to sport or relaxation than to a search for better food. I am sure that this is true for some, particularly as regards certain hunters & fishermen. But most gardeners are after better tasting items to put on the table. In the little town where I grew up (and where my parents still live and put in a large garden every year), there are no good restaurants. You can't even find chain restaurants and fast food without driving 20 miles. But probably 30% of the families there have significant gardens. Granted, they eat convenience foods from the grocery too. But they spend a lot of time in pursuit of better food, as anyone who has worked to properly maintain and harvest from a large garden can attest. Why is it that we praise this when it occurs in other countries, but assume it is beneath notice in the US? If these people do not care about eating or the quality of their food, why do they go to such lengths to grow their own?

  7. It is also political of pogophiles to post this "debunking" as some kind of proof that there is nothing wrong with secondhand smoke...

    ...and which I note none of the pro-tobacco folks here has mentioned in their rebuttals...

    Not sure what is "political" about responding to the statement by a previous poster that all studies showing no causal link were funded by "Big Tobacco". Nor did I state that I believe second-hand smoke to be harmless. Nor am I "pro-tobacco".

    For the record:

    I do believe that the danger of second-hand smoke has been overstated,

    I do believe that business owners should have some latitude in how to run their businesses,

    I do believe that market forces (including the willingness of employees to work in certain environments) should be allowed to work,

    I do believe in avoiding the temptation to over-regulate our lives...

  8. Russian/Barbecue

    "The Capitalist Pig"

    Signature Dish: "Bourgeois-becue" -- Siberian brown bear and Niman Ranch pork is slow-smoked over hickory coals, hand-massaged into tender shreds, basted with a beet, cabbage & caraway seed-infused vodka sauce, and served piping hot on cornmeal blinis topped with creme fraiche and a mixture of Beluga, Sevruga, Osetra & paddlefish caviars and your choice of any two side dishes...

  9. My interest and fondness for French cuisine makes me a bit reluctant to push this book too greatly as I doubt too many members share that interest to the same degree

    No need for reluctance in pushing this book. I just finished reading it and found it excellent. I do not have an overriding interest in French cuisine (at least not in comparison to any other cuisine) and am in no way a food professional. More an interested bystander. IMO, this book is an outstanding read to anyone with even a passing interest in food or the profession...

  10. First, I'd like to point out that the science concerning the health risks associated with smoking and passive exposure to tobacco smoke is not exactly inconclusive, tobacco industry-sponsored studies notwithstanding.  The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the "it's bad for you" camp.  The tobacco companies want to make it look like there is controversy, but really there isn't.

    Then let's talk about a study that was NOT funded by big tobacco. Specifically, the WHO study, which is frequently cited by the "Ban all smoke" crowd.

    The WHO study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

    • Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.

    • Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

    • The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

    Explanation: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.

    An RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.

    The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.

    The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.

    The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

    Still want to argue that only tobacco-funded studies provide doubt?

×
×
  • Create New...