fresco

It's a balancing act. But would it be a terrible thing if people in these circumstances got a little less nutrition but held on to a little more pride?

I vote for No. 3. Don't think you need stock in minestrone. Parmesan rind is nice, though.

i agree - which was my point on the WIC foods on that lady's conveyor belt - it's government listed, but for $4.29 i can easily get 2 big cans, if not more, of oats. just seems that if our tax money is going to fund these programs we could stand to do it in the most economical and healthful way possible. for the cereal that was bought, that family could have oats for a month, plus the fiber. But this is a tricky area. It's demeaning enough, I imagine, being dependent on government handouts to buy food without someone spelling out, item by item, what you should and shouldn't buy. One of the most unpopular moves by a hard-nosed bunch who ran our provincial government a while back was cutting welfare payments below the bone and then having the minister responsible get up in the legislature and piously lecture recipients about saving money by buying things like--no kidding--dented tins of tuna. Even the people who otherwise wholeheartedly supported this bunch were pretty revolted.

Not spending ENOUGH money on food might be something worthy of criticism.

I can think of no better extravagance than good food and drink.

Just checked mine and it is indeed the 1964 edition. Incredible resource, although it does seem to assume most households come equipped with a generous complement of hired help.

When in Mexico, I try to douse doubtful food with lime juice, because it is said to have antibacterial properties. Anyone know whether this is so?

On Maggie's marathon "how many cookbooks" thread, there's a discussion of Classical Southern Cooking by Damien Lee Fowler, with everyone (including Maggie and Alex) agreeing that it should be republished. I have a few such books on my own mental list, including Miriam Ungerer's Good Cheap Food, bought many years ago when I was an impoverished student. Like most really good books, its most valuable lessons were not even hinted at in the title. It was reissued in 1997 and widely praised (again) at the time, but seems to have dropped out again. What are your nominations for cookbooks deserving of a second (or third or fourth) life?

Linchpin and oldtimer Emeril Lagasse: "I never expected this to amount to much of anything." http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/ne...d-network_x.htm

I will never again open the oven door without checking to see what is balanced precariously on the stove top. An extremely heavy cast iron griddle came crashing down, breaking the glass door, which is why I am now baking bread on the Weber in December.

What about teaching people how to cook and shop? I agree these are important skills, and ones that people at all income levels don't necessarily have. Is it possible to offer classes like these without making them either punitive or mandatory?

Are you planning to take two days off to recover?

All right: anyone care to hazard a guess on what IS a reasonable amount of money to allocate for, say, a family of four for a week's food?

Five per cent of a vast array of choices being good ones sounds great to me. It also sounds higher than it is for a lot of stuff, books for instance. I'm an omnivorous reader, but finding three titles that appeal in a bookstore with 20,000 titles is often a chore.

I have noticed that the poor do not spend a lot of their time advising the rich on how they should live their lives.

And why don't they know how to cook or shop? Basic cooking skills don't require a degree in rocket science. And when did it become something only for those that are better off? Drop sports from our education system and teach our children about credit, dietary needs, and cooking. The woman that comes home after two bus trips from her minimum wage job and wants to fix Kraft Macaroni and Cheese? She is not the one that people are pissed off about, it's the one that takes her kids to McDonalds or BK every damn day. And if she can fix the stuff in a box, than she has the skills to fix other things. It takes an effort. And people don't want to make the effort. In the last 20 or so years, perhaps longer, society, as a whole, has lost track. Lost track of personal responsibilty. "It's not my fault" is the new national mantra. Fat? Sue somebody! Did you participate in a shooting spree that left 11 pople dead? Not my fault, I was brainwashed. So what if somebody works two jobs? Why is it that I work, yet the lazy shit around the corner with 3 kids doesn't, and she pays less in rent than I do? At some point a person has to take responsibility for their own actions. Whether we are talking about work, diet, or geneal well being. Why is that some people feel they are owed a free ride? Taking responsibility is a fine thing, if you are able to do so. But the workplace gets more complex and demanding every year, and I suspect more and more people are being pushed to the margins, through no fault of their own. I also suspect it is many of these people who become dependent on government for their bare minimum daily living requirements, and wish it wasn't so. But I do find it hard to resent people who have so little, and such slim prospects of ever getting much more than a handout.

Is it just me, or would anyone else like to poach the Surreal Gourmet in a dishwasher--or strap him to the manifold of a car before a long road trip?

What I find interesting about this thread is we would not have been able to have this debate about organics, non-organics, farm vs factory meat, etc. not too many years ago because these choices did not exist in any meaningful way. And while small retailers and suppliers certainly were on the leading edge of providing some alternatives, it was only when large companies got behind them that anything like broad choices were available to the average consumer. I think it is safe to assume that if and when consumers start demanding that ALL their meat, eggs, dairy, fruit and vegetables be produced without pesticides, hormones, free range, etc., food companies large and small will find a way to do it.

I'd be inclined to agree with you. But in the case of the Toronto politicians, they wrote their own material. It was published in a weekly extremely sympathetic to them.

If Emeril Lagasse (or anyone who cooks) is concerned about the presence of salmonella or e.coli bacteria in food, scientists from University of Alberta have come up with something to "bam" it away: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/05/spice031205

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is actually a very good idea. It's where those shoes take you that can be a problem. No matter how well intentioned someone is, if you, for instance, live on a $17 a week food allotment (for one week!) and then write about it for publication, whining about how hard it is, you don't do anything to improve matters for people who live on $17 a week for years, and you look like an ass. If you, without fanfare, did the same thing and then used your experience to obtain more money for dependent people, that's worthwhile. But in the case of the bureaucrats in Portland, and the politicians in Toronto, I see no evidence at all that this is the case.

It's even worse than I thought. The Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario prohibits free drinks, discounted drinks, or a bunch of drinks served at a fixed price, among other things. See "pricing": http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f....html&qte=0&o=0

I've been racking my brain for examples, but coming up short. Think it may even be illegal (or highly frowned upon) for a bar in Ontario to pour a customer a free drink. The local IGA always very thoughtfully tucks all the extra skin and fat from chicken parts under the chicken so I don't have to get upset until I've unwrapped it at home. Does that count?

And of course, there was Orwell.

Sounds like you've been reading Pierre Bourdieu, fresco. I think it might have been one of the Mitford sisters.