Mjx

If you're in the mood for some not-so-dirty hot dogs, you might give Dogmatic a whirl (south side of 17th Street, between Broadway and Fifth Avenue). Whenever I'm back in NYC, I have breakfast at Whole Foods (coffee + larabar/fruit) many, if not most days, and it's pretty reasonable. If you're going to be in NYC 4+ days, get unlimited 7-day Metrocards (unless you think you're likely to take ten or fewer separate rides each during your stay), especially if your plans may be scattered over the city on any given day. I love walking, but if I've spent several hours walking about uptown, then want to eat downtown, I'm not always in the mood for an hour-long walk, and the individually-paid fares mount really fast. Once you know what you've laid out for transit, you also have a better idea of what you can spend on food. I'd skip the Empire State building, and go to Rockefeller Center for your view: Not only is there a much better selection of food around the the latter, but you'll actually get the Empire State building in your photos, and the queue is shorter (I admit I may still be in a grouch because Mosaico – just a few minutes from the Empire State building – closed, and I loved their food).

Looking forward to this, percyn, especially and winter specialities you share!

Hell no! There are some mushrooms that are pretty unambiguously okay or not, but these aren't among them (and I do eat certain wild mushrooms). I know this echoes what everyone else said, but I don't think this particular 'No' can be overstated.

When I was a kid, my family spent several years in Western NYS, and I recall my mum referring a lot to a couple of books by Euell Gibbons, called Stalking the Wild Asparagus and Stalking the Healthful Herb. From what I recall (I remember using them too, and bringing home my finds), they seem worth at least a look, even though hundreds of books on this subject must have been published since then.

I'd buy it, and I'm generally a neurotic freak about things like sell-by dates and possible food poisoning. Properly cured prosciutto is, as ScoopKW pointed out, something that ages, and it does so very nicely. The sell-by date is a legal requirement, even in Italy, where you can buy it at any stage from very young to well-aged. My only concern would be about the original quality... how the heck did they get so cheap?! But almost certainly worth a go.

Here (in Denmark) it also tends to be really damp, and I've seen friends string them on lengths of thread, then hang the thread-fuls of chanterelles in a dry corner, which seems to do the trick nicely.

Show me some stats that even begin to support this. My experience – and I too travel a lot (and speak several languages, and make part of my living doing translation), have waited tables, and know plenty of people who have waited tables/still do – just doesn't support this. Difference is, I know that any one person's experience, even if it includes lots of other people's war stories, is not enough to base this sort of conclusion on. Perhaps NYC doesn't count as a tourist city? But I think I'll stop here: like pretty much else in this thread at this point, I'm just repeating myself, and frankly, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Well... because even if the generalizations were mostly true, that would be an example of what's not an acceptable reason to not tip? I'm finding it troubling that so many of the generalizations about foreigners in the US seem to be based on hearsay, not direct experience. In the time I waited tables, I was stiffed by Americans exclusively (it was the sort of town that is not exactly featured in travel guides), but there is just no way that I'd draw conclusions about American tipping behaviour from that. I've never been in the company of foreigners who failed to tip generously, but I know that this was often at least partly because I impressed upon them the importance of their tip to the waiter's earnings, and know that there are visiting foreigners who don't tip, for a variety of reasons. But dismissing foreigners as as a group of thoughtless non-tippers doesn't seem particularly reasonable or accurate. Every nation produces its share of thoughtful and appalling travellers, so why slag off one group, and hold up another as models of good behaviour? People remember the extremes, whether it's 'That group of inconsiderate boors/cheap bastards from [pick anyplace on this planet], who got $800 worth of food and tipped nothing', or 'That group from [pick anyplace on this planet] who tipped 25% and came back twice more, and did it again.' ETA: The OP question was, What are reasonable grounds for not tipping? No one involved in this discussion has suggested that not being a US citizen is an acceptable reason for not tipping, although it does explain why some visitors to the US might not think to tip, and educating people about this practice is important. Anyone who's ever tried to explain US tipping, however, is probably familiar with the incredulity/bewilderment that accompany trying to wrap one's head around the persistence of a practice (in the US) that would be condemned in a third-world country as disturbingly exploitive.

But the question originally raised wasn't about the tipping system as such (that was taken as a given), but what a waiter has to do or not do, to merit being undertipped, or not tipped at all. Just showing up isn't enough, any more than it is with any other job. It's a tough job, and I think it's reasonable to cut slack, but if the waiter is rude or negligent, he or she is not doing his or her job, and it's reasonable for the tip (or lack thereof) to reflect this. Some people would add 'incompetence' to the list of tipping offenses, but that's arguable (I come down on the lenient side of that). And... that's pretty much the gist of it, right? There are heaps of corollary/collateral arguments, and they've been raised, here, but they really seem like entirely different topics.

At $45, it might be worth buying, even to just satisfy your curiosity, although that price seems almost alarmingly low. The people we bought prosciutto from when we were in Parma recommended keeping it at 18C (64F), if I remember correctly (it's been a while). Incidentally, we bought bought a small commercial slicer, too; there are people who can hand slice beautifully (they have a competition for this at the annual Langhirano prosciutto festival), but we never acquired the skill, despite our best efforts and sharpest knives.

Hm. I actually thought that you were concerned about it being somehow derogatory towards the French, but I can't imagine anyone other then the chronically offended being bothered by that. Mostly, it made me think of the Monty Python 'Crunchy Frog' sketch, which is sort of gross... but pretty funny, so why not? Did I miss something?

Mostly, the US tipping situation really underscores the character of a restaurant guest, and the full-blown berk will dazzle with his or her indifference or stinginess, but this holds for both Americans and foreign visitors. I continue to have difficulty convincing many Europeans that such wage conditions are possible (especially in places like NYC, which are as expensive as Denmark), that they truly exist; they really don't 'get' it. I've spoken with plenty who, at least initially, worried that 'tipping' might even be a sort of dodge being played on foreigners, to take advantage of their ignorance of local custom. Once they're convinced, the Europeans I know have tipped appropriately. It just doesn't strike me that visiting foreigners are worse offenders in this matter than Americans, and one German guide can't be taken as representative (I'm curious, which one is it? Is it full of other equally charming advice?). And let's face it, if you don't take it for granted, as Americans do, not having a clear idea of how much you're going to pay up front for your meal gives a kind of uncomfortable feeling, which is naturally going to lead to questions.

Ageed. Plus, just setting eyes on 'salt tincture' made me reflexively hit myself on the forehead rather forcefully, so, I now hate the term twice as much. 'Brine' makes a hell of a lot more sense, but I imagine that somebody thinks the word 'tincture' lends an upmarket tone to the stuff. Yeesh. I also now think this would be an excellent addition to the hypothetical 'Iphigenia', which, if everything that I'm thinking of ends up in it, would be a quite revolting drink. And probably indicates that it's a good thing my work week has been abruptly cut off.

Hm... that calls for one called 'Iphigenia', which could be described as 'What to drink when you're hiding from dad'. No idea what would go into it, but I think it's have to be a bit blue, so maybe some Creme de Violette.

Baby rucola, cherry tomatoes still warm from the sun (split), tiny whole basil leaves, thread of olive oil, pinch of salt, grind of coarse pepper. Perfect.

At what point did you add the heart, liver, and kidneys, and how did you prep them before adding them to the braise? This looks delicious, and has inspired me to bite the bullet and shell out for a bunny (wish the ones they sold here were as robust as yours).

This is my recommendation as well. I always ride the bike on highway 1 on my way up to my friend's farm in Point Arena. The trip is 2 days and I always stop in Tomales bay and stay the night! Crab will be in full swing on your visit and you must get it while you're over here! It sounds great... but for now this is just a tempting note in my 'Trip plan' document, because it's going to be a while before I can make the trip 1/3 of the way around the world again, probably a year or so. And, I'm hoping that next time, I won't be dying by inches, and can eat a lot more.

I appreciate tea (although I was told that I have peasant's tastes, because I favour smoky lapsang souchong and gunpowder), but I LOVE coffee. Half the time, it's all I have between waking up and eating dinner.

I've heard a lot of people mispronounce 'tarallucci' in 'Tarallucci e Vino' as 'tara-lucky' or 'tara-luksi', which would be painful, if it weren't for the fact that I'm fairly certain I mispronounce the names of most Asian places. 'Sfoglia' is actually pronounced 'sfol-ya', unless this is some special dialect-related pronunciation, since Italian doesn't run to silent lone esses (plus, if the 's' is silent, it turns it into the word for 'leaf' (plant part), while 'sfoglia' is a thin layer).

I wanted to thank everybody (belatedly) for their great suggestions: We ended up eating at Novak's, Local Ocean, Larrupin Cafe, and Samoa Cookhouse. We didn't make it to New Sammy's, because at the point in our route that we could have managed it, I was just starting antibiotic treatment for a strep throat, and wasn't up to anything like swallowing solids. Next time, I guess. We ate at several other places, including lunch at Crater Lake Lodge, and at Marché, in Eugene (and would definitely return to both), and dinner at Frascati, in San Francisco, which has blown us away both times we ate there. Already looking forward to our next trip out there

At the risk of sounding obvious, how would your failed marshmallows be as a topping for, say, a very dark, dense chocolate/spiced cake or similar dessert, such as bread pudding? The bourbon sounds like it might just make it perfect for the job, and you could tweak it, if you feel it isn't quite dimensional enough as is.

Unless it's a question of rising to the technical challenge (in which case, I think rotuts has it right), using pasteurized eggs would give more predictable results.

Ducks don't breathe with their tongues (see any reliable source regarding avian respiration, e.g. , S. Girling 2003 Veterinary nursing of exotic pets p. 11), but since the tube isn't inserted into the trachea (which would be pointless, since the food would go into the lungs, killing them instantly the first time round), this isn't relevant. I deliberately used 'inserted' rather than 'shoved', by the way, since I have no idea of how much force is used in the proces, and was trying to stick with neutral terms. You know, I'm with Jenni, and I'm folding after this, too, for the simple reason that no matter what we say, those of us who are simply questioning the production foie gras, and suggesting that there might be grounds for concern, are being lumped with those who are demanding it be banned. There aren't just two sides. Between the extremes of 'I have the right to eat what I want, sod the consequences', and 'If you consume products derived from our precious fellow non-humans, you are exploitive, and must be stopped from so doing by any means necessary' there is a huge middle ground comprising plenty of reasonable people who find certain food production methods ethically questionable, but do not believe that bans are the way to go. Several have participated in this discussion, in fact. But even raising the question of the ethics of foie gras production seems to be regarded as evidence, or at least support of animal-rights extremism. It isn't possible to have a discussion, when one side is asking 'Shouldn't we be looking into the ethics of foie gras production?', while the other is responding with 'You're stripping me of my right eat foie gras, and will soon be taking my steak and ham, too'. This isn't even the same discussion. Well, that personal decision is being made for us by people who think they know better. I understood that this ban was put to a vote, correct me if I'm wrong. It's really unlikely that there are enough extremists in California to make for enough votes to carry this; most who voted were almost certainly opposed, but not extreme. They voted as much for what they believed right for them, as for anyone else. Same as any vote. And yeh, it's a fairly pointless bill, which anyone capable of looking ahead would have to seen is not going to improve foie gras production standards over the long term. ('Us'? I thought you live in Nevada.)

I eat meat, if that even matters, and I too have rights, but I believe that any given right is bound to a responsibility: The right to eat animals seems bound to the responsibility to treat them humanely up to and including when they're slaughtered. It is by no means clear that the prevailing process of producing foie gras is not abusive, so I don't see that those who disagree with you (i.e. question or oppose the production of foie gras) can be fairly dismissed as 'liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc.' (but thanks for giving the sceptics among us a pass on being terrorists ). Wondering whether force-feeding to an extent that causes the occasional gastric rupture is needlessly abusive is neither dishonest nor extreme, but is the central question in this discussion; all reasonable participants will want to fully examine it, regardless of their position.

I don't expect to convince anyone whose view of this matter is fundamentally different from mine (i.e. 'Yes, I have the right to eat what I please, but if my choice is responsible for unnecessary suffering or loss, then I'll pass'), and I don't trot out my views unless I'm directly asked, or there is an open discussion on the matter. However, in an open discussion, I don't see why someone questioning or opposing the production of foie gras is 'telling someone what to', whereas someone supporting its production is simply 'defending their rights'. Nor do I get the 'sides' thing: This isn't a simple, two-sided debate between peaceful, tolerant meat eaters and violent, intolerant vegetarians (seriously, re-read the topic, and tell me which perspective is expressed most vehemently and uncompromisingly). An array of perspectives has been presented, most of which are not extreme. I really don't see the slippery slope thing, even though various 'sides' seem to fear (or hope) that this is the start of one. Stripped of squishy anthropomorphising and sanctimonious dribble (which hasn't been present in the current discussion), the argument against the production of foie gras is that there is apparently no humane way of producing it. The same doesn't hold true for producing other meat products. Cuteness? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foie gras issue, unless I've missed something (and given Americans' loss of enthusiasm for rabbit, it seems pretty clear that you don't need an animal rights group to change a population's tastes; sentimentality can do that on its own). To produce foie gras, ducks and geese must be force-fed; force-feeding is accomplished by inserting a tube in the the birds' throats, to deliver the food. These the objective points, not speculation. Since there is no direct way to understand what the experience may be like for the birds raised for foie gras, one can only rely on observation, research, and morbidity/mortality data to hypothesize. Such observation, even when carried out by groups such as the European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, suggest that the process of force-feeding, at least as it is currently carried out, is somewhere between moderately and severely distressing to the ducks and geese (e.g. the report I mentioned previously, Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese). Conclusions based on observation and research do not extend past reasonable speculation. From this point on, however, any discussion moves into pure speculation ('How distressing is it for a bird to have a tube inserted into its throat and be routinely fed an amount that is capable of causing intestinal rupture?') and the philosophical ('Should I care whether or not a bird is feeling distressed?'; 'What are the relative values of my right [as a human] to eat what I want and a food species' right to have a reasonably un-distressing existence, if I have any voice in this matter?', etc.) The speculative questions are probably not answerable, and the philosophical ones are personal. Evidently, at this time, enough Californians are uncomfortable enough with their understanding of foie gras production to wish to oppose it. As someone pointed out upthread, that's democracy. Given the scale, resources and impact of the of the various meat and poultry lobbies, I just can't find it in me to start sobbing about the impact of animal rights groups, which have been pushing for all sorts of changes (from the perfectly reasonable to the bewilderingly idiotic), and have had relatively little effect. We both agreed that banning foie gras was easy, for various reasons. No satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached, unless the objective aspect is kept in sight. And there is at least one remaining objective question: If the current process of force-feeding is distressing to the birds, is it possible to develop an approach that give the same results, but is not distressing, or at least only very mildly so? Has this been seriously investigated? It seems worth the trouble of looking into, and I find it difficult to imagine that even the greatest appreciator of foie gras would object to its being produced under humane conditions!