Dave the Cook

I agree. While I don't doubt McWilliams credentials or the validity of his sources, my earlier point was that I would have preferred to have been presented a more balanced piece--something I think he would have achieved through a first-hand experience in speaking with the farmer's and even better, a trip to the farm to add that balance to the piece. The mass consumer, (not necessarily the informed consumer that visits these forums), could come away after reading McWilliams piece as an indictment of any hog-farming practice that labels their products as "free-range," and that's what concerns me--the confusion that it potentially adds for the consumer searching for answers to an already confusing issue. ← A writer doesn't have a responsibility to be "balanced," if "balanced" means diluting the facts he's trying to present. Regardless, the quotes in my previous post demonstrate that McWilliams has a sober view of factory farming and the relative merits of the free-range alternative. Let's look at who's really "confusing" the issue: From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: and and From ABC News: From the New York Times: Those quotes sum up the common perception of free-range practice -- one that's overly simplified and ignorant of reality. In other words, the only reason they're not confusing is because the public doesn't have the whole story. I wouldn't call McWilliams' article confusing. I'd call it enlightening.

Who or what, for example? Nowhere in the article does he say that questionable practices are universal. He also takes some pains to elevate "free-range" above factory farming, starting with: Then: and That's not how I read what Janet wrote, especially since she used the words "ideally" and "complex."

McWilliams isn't subtle; I'd call him unsentimental. I'd also not characterize his piece on disease among free-range swine with the word "attack," a perjorative that indicates, um, bias. He is a (his words) "concerned consumer trying to get to the bottom of what we eat." I don't understand why McWilliams is obligated to highlight farms that adhere to explemplary standards. Would we be better off not having the information he presents? More to the point, if he's succeeded in "narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers" between factory farming and free-range, that's a service, because the distance in a significant number of cases is narrower than most people think.

Slate is owned by the Washington Post, arguably the second or third most respected newspaper in the United States. I am pretty sure, though don't know for an absolute fact, that they employ rigorous fact-checking. Maybe we can stipulate that point? And if we can, what facts in McWilliams's piece do you dispute? eta: clarity

McWilliams' credentials are described here, among other places in that topic.I'd also point out that when Michael Pollan wrote similar things about "free range" chickens in Omnivore's Dilemma, no one so much as peeped. Does a master's degree in English trump a doctorate in history and a Harvard fellowship? Back to the Slate column: discount the single PETA quote in the piece -- I did -- and McWilliams cites the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Copenhagen Post reporting on a decree from the Danish government, a blog post by someone witnessing a castration at Stone Barns, a German veterinary magazine, and a book published by an organization that promotes third-world agricutural production -- none of which are apologists for the vegetarian-or-die PETA agenda. I'd also submit that they're all pretty reliable sources -- as in, they present facts.

Great. Just checking.

I'm sure you've considered this, but just to keep the record complete: all of the burners on your rangetop are truly identical? Lots of them have varying outputs.

Pain seems to be a constant: and Such thinking generates a typical McWilliams statement:

Residents will know better, but I don't think there are any expressly modern restaurants in New Orleans along the lines of Alinea or even McCrady's. Having said that, I agree with Doc -- MiLa is where you want to go. My report is here. Modern thinking and execution, if not necessarily an ultra-modern menu.

It's indispensable in making your own Worcestershire sauce.

But without tasting, how do you know when something isn't right?

To clarify further, high heat alone won't warp a pot or pan. It's the uneven application of heat (or cold, as in what happens when you toss a scorching pan into a sink full of suds) that precipitates the problem. None of us should be doing that. But to paraphrase what Sam said elsewhere, cookware that's listed at 200+ dollars shouldn't warp, period.

D'oh. Of course.

In what way would that be more fun than arguing about it?

First, I have some All-Clad, and it's warped. Second, I've been cooking for 45 years. Over the last two, I've been teaching in a professional kitchen. In hands-on classes, students are always saying, "But I thought All-Clad wouldn't warp!" while watching butter melt at the far (or near) end of the pan. In my experience (which admittedly isn't complete; I've not cooked with Falk or Mauviel, for example, but I've had the opportunity to work with many other brands), the only cookware that doesn't warp is Demeyere and Bourgeat.

This is nonsense.

I don't buy the premise here -- that Sitram, or any line of cookware -- is an "alternative" to All-Clad. That presumes that All-Clad is the categorical first choice, and everything else is somehow a compromise. When I look at cookware, All-Clad is not among the choices I consider. It's over-priced, and often over-designed: why should I pay for side cladding on a saute pan (I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant on most pots, too)? Why do I have to put up with awkward handles on an expensive skillet? What's with the rivets? Why does it warp? There are lots of choices. Much depends on what you cook, how you cook it, and how much money you have. Assuming that All Clad is functionally the best and rating other lines according to its specs skews those options. Having said all that, I've picked up Sitram Profisserie at . . . TJ Maxx.

It really doesn't matter, but it's easiest to remove while the belly is still a bit warm from cooking.

We were at PDT last week. I'd put one of the bartenders there -- sorry, I don't know his name, but he had an Australian (I think) accent -- up against anyone freepouring, counting or whatever. He measured everything, and was scary fast. In large part, this seemed to be because he knew exactly where everything was. He wasted zero time looking for bottles, double-checking what he'd grabbed, or holding something up to the light to tell what it was. He didn't even look; he just snatched in the place where he expected something to be, and he knew. Until I watched him, it hadn't occurred to me how much time is wasted on such exercises.

Alcohol-free vodka made from French grapes rather than alcohol-free vodka made from Polish potatoes. Duh.

There's a difference between "horrible" and "horrible value."

That reminds me: Corian.

Restaurants with patios usually allow smoking on them.

Good move.

Just to take the heat off All-Clad, I nominate Calphalon One.