docsconz

The carbon footprint argument for olive oil may be hold water on the west coast, but not on the east, where it is about the same assuming that the oil is obtained from similarly green producers.

It all depends on the quality of the shrimp. If it is of top quality and flavorful, then let it shine with a simple grilling in the shell with the head still on (preferably). If not of the very best quality, any of the above or other enhancements would work well.

Wow, Phila! I am stuffed and exhausted just reading your accounts. I will be spending some time in New Orleans over the next four years as my second son will be starting at Tulane late summer. Thanks for the additional pointers!

As someone mentioned on Eater, you can't "call" cabs in New York. A restaurant can call a liveried car service if it has the phone number of one -- more expensive than a cab, and often it takes a long time for one to come if you don't schedule it in advance -- or it can send a staff member out onto the street to hail one (which is something no one, I think, would reasonably expect). But in New York, unlike in other cities, regular taxicab services don't have telephone numbers you can telephone to have a cab come. They don't work that way. You HAVE to hail them on the street. I've been eating in restaurants in New York for thirty some years and I've NEVER had a car called for me -- or even thought of it as a possiblity. (I HAVE done so in other cities.) It just doesn't work that way here (probably because, unlike in most other cities, there are so many cruising cabs here) (although the system breaks down when it's raining). ← Your point is a good one, which is why I was wondering who she asked. Ideally, that should have been explained to her. They dropped the ball on this with the lack of an explanation. Of course, there could have been any number of reasons why the ball was dropped, but it was dropped.

Amongst the upcoming events at The Astor Center in NYC, one caught my eye for a variety of reasons. Titled Gender Confusion: Unraveling the Myths of Gender in the Restaurant Kitchen, it brings together a who's who of people in the restaurant industry including Grant Achatz, Dana Cowin and others to navigate through a blind tasting prepared by male and female chefs to attempt see if there is anything to the idea that one can tell the cooking of a man from that of a woman. Many feel that there is a difference. In a 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article, Mike Weiss wondered why he preferred women's cooking to men's. In that article, Joyce Goldstein claims Further along in the article, Weiss talked to the sometimes controversial Alice Waters who said, More recently, at the James Beard Awards this year, Mario Batali said: There are a lot of gender related claims in the food media, and most of them assume that these differences exist. But do they? Most of them suggest that women chefs produce food that is feminine and rustic and full of soul, and men produce food that is precise, bold, and driven by ego. Two writers (and former cooks), Hugh Merwin and Tejal Rao, don't agree and are gathering 20 of New York City's chefs, male and female, to create a blind tasting for a small panel that includes Grant Achatz of Alinea, Dana Cowin of Food and Wine, and academic and cookbook author Gwen Hyman. The group intends to carry out an experiment, tasting the chefs' dishes blindly and discussing whether or not these claims are real, relevant, or damaging. It should make for an interesting conversation. What are your thoughts on gender in the kitchen and on the plate? Do you think you could tell the difference between a sardine course cooked by a man and a sardine course cooked by a woman? Why or why not?

Robyn, how do you prefer squab to be cooked? I prefer mine more on the rare side of medium rare. I would bet that it was cooked sous vide leaving a uniform color throughout. Was the fat lardo? Photos do come in handy The taxi story is inexcusable, but out of curiosity, who did you ask? I haven't been to Corton since the fall. What is the current charge for the tasting menu?

Neither you nor anyone else apparently. It seems that it is closing according to multiple sources on the internet including the NY Times, Eater, etc.

Very interesting. When I went to the Citi Field Culinary All-Stars press conference at the end of March the restaurant within the Delta 360 Club did not yet appear to have a specific name such as the "Sterling" that you mentioned. I was impressed with the various offerings. They certainly make the choice of eating at the ball park versus eating outside or brown-bagging an easy one, though nothing that I had was so good that I would go there just to eat.

They had Sicilian?

This topic isn't about the pizza of today, though. is it?

Really? I've never had pizza anywhere quite like Ray's on 6th & 11th. One may or may ot like it, but it is or at least was unique. It was NY style steel deck pizza by the slice on cheesified steroids. For this pie, the cheese came first with every thing else support. Fundamentally I don't think it breaks any stylistic boundaries, no. You go to pretty much any place and tell them to put quadruple extra cheese on the pizza, and you'll get something similar. One can quibble about the spicing of the sauce or whatever, but its nothing genre-defining. All we're talking about is stainless steel deck oven pizza with a sh!tload of extra cheese. No big deal. I'm not saying that it was not something that couldn't be duplicated, but it wasn't - at least noty in my experience. It doesn't work to go in and ask for extra cheese on a slice. either it was on from the beginning and served fresh or it didn't work. It may not have been a big deal in terms of its level of simplicity, but I've never seen anyone else pull it off the way they did. Their hay day was before your time in NYC and before Steven's coming of age. By the mid 80's when I was in Med School it wasn't the same anymore. All I'm saying is: (1) It isn't all that interesting to a pizza lover in terms of a "destination pizza" and doesn't represent a category of pizza they are unlikely to have experienced so much as an iteration of a very familiar category. I think that either today or back in 1977, someone would come to NYC and most likely say, "okay... this is just like Luigi's pizza back home, with a ton of cheese on it." Whether it's perceived as good would depend on whether or not they're into that sort of thing. and (2) Most anyone can get more or less the same pizza in their home town by going to their favorite pizzeria and ordering a whole pie with quadruple extra cheese. ← To address the comment I highlighted in bold, I would say that there are many different types of pizza that people love, this being one of them. To say that it is not a destination misses the point that it probably was "the" pizza destination in the entire US during the 1970's. The long, continuously fast moving lines were evidence of that. It was also the place I and many others always took visiting from out of town friends to. I don't think anybody ever compared it to any other pizza - at least not back then. Even now, it is not quite as simple as ordering quadruple cheese on a regular pie. The quality of the cheese available in most pizza places nowadays is vastly inferior to what used to be used. I believe economics changed that. Sam, I know that you are very knowledgeable and sophisticated when it comes to pizza (and just about everything else), but you do not and can not have the experience on this to be a judge, because you never experienced Rays at its peak (and I don't believe Steven did either). I'm not saying that it was better than the best pizzas of today's pizza renaissance, it was different and it was wonderful in its own right.

Really? I've never had pizza anywhere quite like Ray's on 6th & 11th. One may or may ot like it, but it is or at least was unique. It was NY style steel deck pizza by the slice on cheesified steroids. For this pie, the cheese came first with every thing else support. Fundamentally I don't think it breaks any stylistic boundaries, no. You go to pretty much any place and tell them to put quadruple extra cheese on the pizza, and you'll get something similar. One can quibble about the spicing of the sauce or whatever, but its nothing genre-defining. All we're talking about is stainless steel deck oven pizza with a sh!tload of extra cheese. No big deal. ← I'm not saying that it was not something that couldn't be duplicated, but it wasn't - at least noty in my experience. It doesn't work to go in and ask for extra cheese on a slice. either it was on from the beginning and served fresh or it didn't work. It may not have been a big deal in terms of its level of simplicity, but I've never seen anyone else pull it off the way they did. Their hay day was before your time in NYC and before Steven's coming of age. By the mid 80's when I was in Med School it wasn't the same anymore.

Really? I've never had pizza anywhere quite like Ray's on 6th & 11th. One may or may ot like it, but it is or at least was unique. It was NY style steel deck pizza by the slice on cheesified steroids. For this pie, the cheese came first with every thing else support. One pizza place in Brooklyn that I grew up with and was always excellent was Lenny's on 5th Ave. not far from Greenwood Cemetery. If ever there was an classic NY style, this embodied it. It is not in the greatest neighborhood and to my knowledge has never gotten much press, but it was made with care and good ingredients. I haven't been in a while, so i can't speak to current quality, but I believe that it is still owned by the same family, so I expect the quality to still be excellent. In addition to their pizzas, they had the best calzones.

A great new place to try is Aldea, chef driven Iberian food at a reasonable price point. It is on 17th St. betw. 5th & 6th Aves.

Nancy, I loved the stuff too back in the late 70's, early 80's. It was my favorite pizza, but the only Ray's that hit the mark was, indeed the one on 6th & 11th. Mid to late 90's thru today, I coudn't say.

But I like gooey, cheesy messes! What made the Ray's of the 70's and early 80's great was the turnover. That kind of pie needs to be eaten fresh, right out of the oven. It doesn't reheat well. If they are not doing the same kind of business (and I can't see how they could be), I can't see how it would be as good, even if everything else was the same. I wouldn't say that I like this style more than the more classic Neapolitan style, but I liked it a lot in its day, in the way that one can like two similar, but different approaches to the same thing. Just because they are differrent, it doesn't mean that one is necessarily worse.

I will have to try it again for old time's sake, though the last few times I have (not recently) it left me disappointed.

Doc - The Famous Ray's is still alive and kicking (or it was a year or so ago, when I last visited). Even though the place has changed, as have the people making the pizza - the formula is the same as when I was an NYU student in the 1980s and I still love and crave it. I actually have occasional dreams that I walk to NYC from Cleveland for a slice. ← While it still exists, it is not the same as I remember it. One of the things that made it what it was, is that it was always so busy that turnover guaranteed a fresh, hot slice with buckets of cheese oozing from it. It was expensive for the times, but oh so good. One slice was actually a full meal.

One of the most interesting elements of your piece was the poor quality and apparent resurgence of Totonno's. back when eGullet ran the pizza survey, Totonno's was one of the highlights. Never having actually been there before that I am unable to offer a comparison, but clearly it was not the same as you described in 1999. Another interesting change is the decline of the super cheesy slice. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, Ray's on 6th Ave. and 11th St was the king of the NY pizzerias with a style of slice with a ton of gooey cheese, that became all the rage and has since faded into apparent oblivion. It clearly was a different style than most of the well charred, crisp, thin crusted pizzas popular today. I would say that it was neither better nor worse, but it was different and special in its own right.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person. That is the essence of an ad hominem argument. Argumentum ad hominem is when you "reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." I don't gather that people have been saying, for example, "organic school lunches for everyone is a crock because Alice Waters is a demagogue." At least in this thread, what I see when people have criticized some of her ideas is that they have criticized the substance of her arguments. If anything, some of this has gone in reverse, with some defending any criticism of any idea issuing from Waters' mouth, seemingly at least partially motivated by an unwavering admiration of Waters. To the extent that some people (myself included) have pointed out that aspects of Waters' persona and delivery may have the effect of rendering people less receptive to her ideas... that's simply pointing out the truth of human nature, not making an argument for or against any of her ideas one way of the other. Her persona and delivery also make people less receptive to her ideas even when they are ideas with which I agree. ← Sam, I wasn't saying or implying that you were amking ad hominem attacks. I don't believe that you were. I get your point and I agree with it regarding Waters though I don't share the same attitude towards her. The topic is too long to go back over with a fine tooth comb, but there were ad hominem attacks that were putting down the substance of her ideas because they were her ideas. By the way, how does yur dictionary definition differ with what I said was the "essence of an ad hominem argument"? By not being able to separate the person from the ideas and one attacks the person, one attacks the ideas. You have done a good job of separating the two. Some others have attacked the person and the ideas on their own merits, while others have primarily attacked the ideas by way of the person. In fairness, the ideas are not necessarily good simply because they are her ideas either.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person. ← That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.

probably more likely a function of too much multi-tasking. I have no doub that if you were to concentrate on what you were doing in the kitchen all your skills would return. It is like being in a batting slump in baseball. For me, it is usually the other way, I putter along and occassionally get hot and make some things that are really good!

I think that to the extent that there is backlash against Waters, it's pretty easy to figure out why: 1. She has a tendency to express her ideas in unfortunate ways that reasonable people may reasonably find condescending and not respectful of the choices that people make and the challenges people face, especially in the current economy. Since she has held herself up as a Living Embodiment of these principles, an exemplar whom everyone should emulate, she is doubly vulnurable to the same kind of backlash that has affected others who present themselves this way (Martha Stewart being the perfect and obvious example). I do not think that there is any backlash against Waters due to people not agreeing with some of her ideas, although it is clear that not everyone agrees with all of her ideas or all of her priorities. I believe that, if she were to express herself in a different way, and if she were not holding herself up as someone whom everyone should strive to be like and whose priorities every right-thinking person should share, then I think that more people would be more open to her ideas. I also think that she would be less annoying to people who don't agree with all of her ideas, and there would consequently be less backlash. The fact is that I agree with many (probably most!) of Alice Waters ideas. And yet, I still find her preachy and annoying. And there are other people who have far more ideas with which I disagree, and yet I find these people infinitely less annoying than Waters. 2. Alice Waters's proponents and self-appointed defenders have lost part of the battle by continually insisting that her crap doesn't stink on every possible point of contention. Which is, well... annoying. If you guys had simply said: "Yea. I can see how Waters can seem preachy to some people. And maybe it wasn't such a great idea to suggest that we increase the school meal program by $18 to $40 billion dollars when our educational system is circling the drain. And maybe it's not such a great idea to say things that make you look like you're condescending to people whose family decisions include $100 Nike shoes and not $5 bunches of organic Bronx grapes. I get that. But she's got a lot of good ideas. And we do need to get better food into the schools. And we really should rethink our financial priorities as a culture, considering that we spend a lower percentage of income on food than any other first world nation. Her heart's in the right place. But, yea, I agree that she can be preachy and condescending sometimes" -- we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. Instead, it's been these ridiculous attempts to defend everything she has ever said at all costs. Well, that's going to be a losing battle. Because it seems clear that there is going to be a neverending stream of examples people can use where Waters has said things that a reasonable person might reasonably find offputting, and which might incline that person to not be so terribly fond of Alice. And some of you guys are going to have to work harder and harder and harder to defend against these things so that Alice can once again seem like someone who does no wrong. And that's really the crux of matter. Alice (along with you, her defenders) has held herself up as some kind of eco-cultural-foodie messiah who can do no wrong. This rubs people the wrong way sometimes. Basta. ← This is a very good summary. The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks. Like any individual, she can be polarizing just because of who she is and some of the methods she may use. I too do not agree 100% with her, though I do find most of her ideas and most of the things she stands for, compelling. I do not have any personal gripe with Alice Waters and whether or not she is a or the chef, she owns and runs a damn great restaurant!

Happily with or without a discount.

I recently bought the Bayley Hazen and Cabot cloth-bound cheddar (made by Jsper Hill and featured in that Art of Eating article) in N.H. - both truly outstanding. I will be making a point of buying more whenever I return to N.H. (hopefully with some frequency as my son is going to college there). I got to know Alain Sailhac a bit during the Bocuse D'Or and have been wanting to get to L'Ecole ever since. Your reports have certainly whet my appetite even further.