Pan

All of these points are well taken, Anne. But the thing is, civil servants for the most part are there to execute and not make policy, and therefore don't get to decide which fish they're going to fry. I'm definitely sympathetic to the argument that there are much more important health issues than an effort to ban trans fats (except from schools below college level, which act in loco parentis toward minor students), but I can't blame the rank-and-file civil servants for doing the jobs they've been asked to do. The credit or blame rests higher up.

Dejah, that looks really soothing!

Fat Guy, I no-one has yet asked you what the significance of the number "49" is in this article. So what is it?

I got a sufganiyah (?) at Moishe's on 2nd Av. near 7th St. I think it may have been the first time they made them. I don't have a basis for comparison to other sufganiyot, but I liked it.

Oh, I do not dismiss them all. Quite the contrary. I think I have expressly stated my support of the immunization program clearly, and my hopeful encouragement that they spend time eradicating rodent hair, bug parts and human/animal feces from the food supply. More power to them in such persuits, and objectively those are tax dollars well spent. As a sufferer of a progressive, chronic illness - I have more respect for the medical profession in general than you would believe. I have had the priviledge of knowing some remarkable doctors who do an amazing job. I just don't want them in my pantry and fridge confiscating anything they deem inappropriate, especially if they are 20 or 30 layers removed from my individual case. And quite frankly, the best doctors out there have better things to do. Also, the general consensus is among the majority of doctors is well, ya gotta live too. Something about the day to day morbidity they face makes them pragmatists, I think. I'm not real big on the "living, breathing" constitution thing. Literalist here. I guess you can tell! ← I decline to get into an argument over literalism and what that should consist of, if anything, and how every later amendment would fit into such a philosophy. That goes to legal philosophy and the investigation and interpretation of history. But your not wanting civil servants enforcing bans on foodstuffs is a disagreement on policy, not a question of whether all the civil servants dealing with food policy are all non-specialists or somehow otherwise of questionable competence ("jacks of all trades, and masters of none"). I continue not to see the need to attack the entire staff of a bunch of government agencies, because you would rather they were not employed to do the particular jobs they have been hired to perform. Doesn't it make more sense to attack the higher-ups who are responsible for creating the policies you so strongly oppose? Even in the case of this particular ban, elected officials such as Mayor Bloomberg, with the allowance of the courts and higher-level governments, are ultimately responsible. Very sorry about the chronic illness! And of course there are good and bad doctors, as there are good and bad civil servants, good and bad cooks, etc., etc.

Plenty of them are medical doctors, and their mandate is broad. Here's a brief organizational overview of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: ← THIS is the problem and you have illustrated it perfectly! Jacks of all trades, and masters of none. Big, bloated, overreaching, inefficient Bureaucracy. I cannot believe that this is what the founding fathers had in mind. ← No, because in the 18th century, this was a low-population agrarian country with no railways, airlines, etc., etc., etc. The genius of the Constitution was that the framers made it flexible enough to grow and change with the country, as considered necessary by a super-majority of society. I am more than a little bit uncomfortable with your summary dismissal of all public servants dealing with health. Should we do a search on their credentials in order to prove that some of them are highly distinguished specialists? I think that it's very possible to generally criticize bureaucracy and over-regulation without launching a generalized ad hominem attack on the entire civil service. Please concede that there are public servants who are motivated by professionalism and a desire to serve the public as diligently as possible. And if you can't remember any such examples, how about C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under President Reagan?

That argument has its own logic, and is really the communitarian counterpoint to the libertarian viewpoint.

pronounced ke-chup manaisse, right? always confusing... ← Well, in Malay, it's kicap ("KEE-chahp"), but I suppose the Indonesians may pronounce it "keh-CHAHP." Manis is simple, though: "mah-NEES." Malay and Indonesian are pronounced fairly similar to Italian, especially in terms of vowels.

I have to admit I looked at the New York State Constitution and, in an admittedly quick reading, didn't find anything about promoting the general welfare as such. I haven't checked the New York City Charter. For the record, I would actually advocate making the most-used illegal drugs legal, but I'm in the minority, and I'm also not a diehard libertarian (though I respect libertarianism and have strong libertarian tendencies), but rather a pragmatist. I think that prohibitions that don't work because they create worse effects should be abolished. But I'm not sure to what degree I care about personal choices that are really harmful and preventable. I still think, like JohnL does, that it's a matter of degree. We should keep the cyanide away from people who are suicidal because of depression, rather than terminal illness and the like. I can't get excited about a "ban" on trans fats, one way or the other, but I find the argument that accurate labeling is most important to be a good one. Parents should take responsibility, as much as possible, for what their children put in their mouths, and adults should be able to use accurate information to make up their own minds, within reason.

I had dinner with wine pairings tonight at Al di La, and it was great! We were in their bar around the corner from the restaurant. We got Prosecco, and eventually, when our table was free in the restaurant, my friend decided that we would be better off staying and eating at the bar. So we did. And John, the bartender/sommelier took great care of us! We let him pick the wines for our meal. We started with the Seppia and Oxtail appetizer, which was terrific! It was so full of flavor, peppery and salty (in a good way, as part of the flavor), and the buttery polenta was a perfect foil for it. I'm having trouble remembering the wine pairing after all that wine we drank, but it was a very clean-tasting white wine that went perfectly with the dish. For our primo, we shared the casunziei (essentially ravioli stuffed with finely minced beets and ricotta, in a very buttery sauce with poppyseeds and cheese). I like beets a lot and liked the earthiness of the high-quality beets in the ravioli; my dining partner doesn't love beets and still felt that of its type, the dish was as good as it could be. It was paired with a wonderful Riesling from Slovenia which had a fragrance reminiscent of Muscat wine, but wasn't as sweet. For our secondi, I had the calf liver alla Veneziana in a sherry reduction with caramelized onions and polenta, and my friend had hanger steak in some other kind of wine reduction with arugula salad. We also had a contorno of Savoy cabbage stems. We both thought it was all delicious, but the real standout was the fantastic liver dish. The pairing was a dry red Burgundy that I might not have liked so much by itself, but that went well with the red meat. For dessert, we shared a wonderfully spongy pear-and-chocolate cake with creme fraiche and were also given excellent biscotti with a strong orange taste and almonds. We didn't order wine with dessert but were given a taste of a red Moscato that we found perhaps a bit too syrupy (but hey, it was a taste on the house), and a pour of a sparkling wine (cabernet, I think?) that we enjoyed. [Edit: I just remember that we were also given a pour of Tortolato, which is a delicious moderately sweet wine.] Given the quality of the service and the free pours (there was also a taste of a Bordeaux), I tipped over 30%, and John deserved every penny. We closed out the place, and far from rushing us, he spent the time to talk to us and share wine with us. It was really a great evening, and I would love to go back! Right now, I am high on alcohol, giddy, and happy, and I just had the best Italian meal I've had since my first trip to Lupa (not my second or third trips there) -- and the value was great!

It's right in the Preamble to the U.S Constitution: An argument can be made that there are other Constitutional provisions more important than the purpose of "[promoting] the general welfare," but the Constitutional basis for these actions, misguided or not as the actions may be, is right there. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the courts will not rule that governments have no right to "encroach on the right of the people to make decisions for themselves." Most every law in fact impinges on that right, which is not absolute; otherwise, murder wouldn't be prohibited (or, if you want a victimless crime, it would be legal to purchase any drug anyone wanted to purchase for personal use). Now, you may be a diehard libertarian, and that's a respectable and logical position, but it isn't really relevant to the reality of the situation, which is that governments (Federal or lower) DO have the power to encroach on people's rights to make decisions about what they put into their own bodies and, therefore, that the only counterarguments that are likely to have any effect would have to do with just how dangerous this chemical is and what economic impact the ban will have. And my guess is that the ban will be tried for a few years or so and then judged as to its actual effects.

This is first of all a political question of division of powers between the Federal government of the U.S. and a city government -- the discussion of which I believe would go beyond the subject matter for discussion here. As for the point that was brought up about alcohol and cigarettes being subject to the same objections, alcohol in moderation is shown to be good for some people's health, while I don't know of any studies that show that moderate cigarette use is beneficial. Also, Prohibition of alcohol was tried and failed, so I don't see any risk of its repetition in the U.S. For what it's worth, I don't have any problem, in principle, with the government banning a substance used in food. Nor do I think any of you would object, if the substance was clearly highly toxic, such as if mercury were being used as an additive in some product. So I think the argument properly is over just how toxic or harmless this particular substance is.

XiaoLing, please post about that restaurant in the New York forum. Some of us New York-area people (yes, even Manhattanites) do go into Queens from time to time for really tasty food. There's even a thread on Queens Boulevard, if you'd like to post the info about the restaurant there.

I always preferred "There's a broken light for every heart on Broadway," but that's less true nowadays. Very entertaining article, Fat Guy.

Curry Fish Head at Skyway in Manhattan costs $15. The fish head isn't a foot long, though!

Dan, you'd have to give a time frame on that, because there was negro slavery in New York State, too, and no-one would ever call New York part of the South.

I haven't read the article and I'm not sure I'm interested enough to do so, but are you making a joke or are partisan politics actually relevant here? And if so, how? I frankly don't read Time Out often enough to have any impression of where they fit on an ideological spectrum.

XiaoLing, that beef stew looked great, just what the doctor ordered in this December weather.

In case anyone doesn't know what gula Melaka is, it's palm sugar. In Malaysia, it comes (used to come?) in a cylinder (diameter of perhaps six inches, height of maybe a quarter or a half an inch) with leaf wrapping around the sides. My parents and I used to disgust our neighbors by eating the sugar bit by bit, as Americans do with maple candy. Gula Melaka traditionally was wood-roasted and had a wonderful smokey taste. Is the smokey taste gone, along with the wood-roasted kueh bakar?

So it looks like I might not get to meet you two this time. Maybe someday for breakfast, but Saturday morning is out, because I have to get to work at 10 A.M., and it's lately been taking me 1 hour 20 minutes to get there (damned weekend subway construction!). I feel completely safe in saying that Katz's serves pastrami anytime they're open. I don't know how early they open on Saturdays, and I don't think I've ever gone there in the morning (certainly not the early morning). A Katz's pastrami sandwich is very heavy for breakfast. Somehow, I don't think that'll be a problem for you all, however.

Interesting to see you say that, Bryan. I had a stronger and less favorable reaction to some of the platings, and that's something I very seldom get worked up about at all. I did a Google image search for "symphony in red and khaki" and in the interest of decorum, I'll refrain from saying the words that are on my mind and merely state that I have a strong dislike for it. But really, the important thing for me would be not how the desserts are plated (some of the platings strike me as pretentious, though I'm positive that's no-one's intention) but how they taste. If they taste great, terrific, and I'd be sold on them! One question, though: tobacco used in a dish? That's the equivalent of how many cigarettes? Even if it's a fraction of one, I think I'd steer well clear of that. OK, a second question: Is the menu online anywhere as of yet? Thanks for the great report, doc!

Nice stuff, Elie. What does "sponge" mean in the context of bread?

Further to your point, nakji: It is traditional to eat kenduri (feasts) seated on a mat on the floor in a Malay house. I have spent a great deal of time sitting on the floor and having delectable (and at least once, poor -- when a cheap family put too much chili in the goat curry) savories with rice, and desserts, cross-legged, eating with my right hand. It sure was worthwhile!

I'm no linguist, so I have to ask what may be a question with an obvious answer, or perhaps one far to complcated for this venue? Why do these languages have gendered words to begin with? SB (la volaille and la table sound more "feminine" to me. Must be the "la" part? ) ← Why does English have the word "the"? Why do we put "s" on most of our plurals? Why did English LOSE gender for most nouns, whereas Old English had it? Who knows. Linguists can no doubt explain the history, but the "why" of language has to do with ways people can think about things. So many people, so many ways of thinking, so many languages. In Malay, there's a traditional proverb that addresses this, and is a food analogy to boot: Banyak udang, banyak garam; banyak orang, banyak ragam. To give as accurate (though unpoetic) a translation as possible: "Many shrimps, much salt; many people, many kinds." (By the way, there are no plural forms in that saying. Orang = person/people. Etc.)

I hope you have a chance to tell us the brands that won while your blog is still open. Regardless, I wanna know.