Dave the Cook

I just got a press release from Union Square Hospitality Group about this event, and I'm a little puzzled. But first, I note that the week is now almost three weeks, from 13 July to 31 July. I suppose they're just trying to get people out and spending money, but it seems to me that they're risking overexposure, if not outright boredom. Here's what I don't get: the release talks about what Gramercy Tavern, Union Square Cafe and Eleven Madison Park will be doing during Restaurant Week -- and they don't actually seem to be participating. Each restaurant will be running a $24 lunch special with $1 going to City Harvest. Each store will do this for five weekdays, rotating through the duration of Restaurant Week (although, if I'm reading it right, Gramercy Tavern, scheduled for 13-17 July, is booked, taking it out of the rotation). If that's not confusing enough, the release concludes by saying the Tabla and Bread Bar (lunch only), Blue Smoke (lunch and dinner) and the Modern's Bar Room (dinner only) "will be officially participating in Restaurant Week." So it looks to me like USHG is backing away from Restaurant Week by taking its most prominent stores out of play. Any ideas on why that would be?

I've taught a few cocktail classes, but they've not been hands-on affairs, and the knowledge transferred has been only the most basic stuff. Having said that, I do have some suggestions: At a seminar I attended a couple of years ago, Dale DeGroff taught a "tasting" technique that really opened my eyes. We had seven different bottlings to taste, each represented by a half-ounce pour in a small plastic cup, and when I took my seat, I was sure that I was in for palate fatigue, gustatory confusion and slight inebriation. Here's what he told us to do: put your nose and mouth over the sample and breathe through your mouth. Unless you clamp your nose, you'll still get significant sensory input, and you won't burn your nose hairs with the alcohol. It also gives your tongue a small dose of ethanol, so it gets gently tempered for the onslaught to come. What that means is that you don't need to ingest so much alcohol to register the differences in brands, ages, etc. (It also reminds you how much aroma matters.) The only improvement I could suggest is a piece of paper with a checklist for each spirit, so students can note their impressions immediately; I'd include common descriptors and a few blank lines. Don't underestimate the impression that a full-strength cocktail can have on a newb. A few years back, a friend asked me to create a drink for a party she was giving. I came up with a combination of reposado tequila, spiced syrup and lemon juice topped with hard cider: maybe a touch more alcoholic than a Tom Collins. She took the recipe home for testing and reported back the next day: It was great, but man, was it strong! Now, she regularly has a Friday lunch accompanied by a typical Tex-Mex frozen Margarita (with the requisite shot of Chambord or Midori), so she's not averse to alcohol. But if your students have similar experience, a real Margarita (or Aviation or Sidecar) will be a big boozy surprise. Ice: start big. If you can't enlist a local Kold-Draft equipped bar to pony up, then use those big-ass silicone molds and make your own giant cubes. For the day-of, use an insulated cooler with a perforated hotel pan (so the melt drips off; water just makes ice melt faster). If you can't find a perfed pan, get one of those expandable mesh sink strainers to hold your ice in the cooler. Just get the water off the ice as quickly as possible.

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.