slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
If they weren't so bad for me, I'd cook up a whole batch of gizzards and have it for dinner.
AFAIK, gizzards aren't all that bad for you. A gizzard isn't really an organ or gland like a liver, heart or kidney. A gizzard is simply a specialized, very muscular "pre-stomach" that is found in birds and other animals that lack teeth. The idea is that the chicken swallows bits of gravel which stay in the gizzard (aka "craw") and act in place of teeth to grind food into small pieces before they are passed to the main stomach.
So, fundamentally, a gizzard is just a piece of tough muscle. I don't think they're particularly high in fat or anything like that.
-
OK.. So this is the part where we disagree.. I believe its the employee that should conform to the business.. You believe its the business's job to conform to the employee..
I believe a person has the ability to look at a job and choose if its what they want to do.. I.E Should buildings be made lower to accomodate workers who are afraid of heights? Or what if someone wants to be a boxer but doesnt like being hit? Should we remove punching from boxing to protect the worker?
Smoking existed before these people took there job.. If you are going to give me the example of the poor worker who has no other option, its simply not true.
Daniel, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it leads directly back to an industrial revolution-era unregulated workplace. Your examples are, of course, deliberately ridiculous ones. But how about some real examples that would follow from this philosophy: Should construction companies be forced to mandate hardhats and provide safety lines and harnesses? Should mining companies be forced to provide ventilation and other air safety measures? Should manufacturing companies be forced to meet safety standards so their machines don't tear their workers' arms off? Your line of reasoning suggests that they shouldn't -- that the "employees should conform to the business" and simply accept these risks. I believe -- and the government of this and every other modern country agrees -- that the clear answer to all these questions is, "yes, they should." And the sad fact is that none of these things would have happened in these industries if the government hadn't stepped in with regulations. For sure, mine owners and factory owners and industrialists weren't suddenly going to decide to spend money on safety measures unless someone made them do it.
As for "taking the punching out of boxing to protect the worker," that is an even more flawed example. In boxing, punching is an inherent part of the job. No punching equals no boxing. So you can't take the punching out of boxing. Similarly, being around gigantic raging fires that have a risk of exploding is an inherent part of the job if you work putting out oil field fires. You can't take that out of the job, because then there wouldn't be a job. Being around secondhand smoke, on the other hand, is simply not an inherent part of the job of working in an office building, serving someone a plate of food, working as a flight attendant, pouring someone a glass of beer, etc. Take away the secondhand smoke, and the job is not affected one bit. I should point out, however, that in boxing they do take safety measures to protect the workers. Boxing is a highly regulated job. Boxers wear gloves, their hands are taped, both tape and hands are inspected, there are strict rules that must be followed, there is ringside medical personnel, and there is a referee in the ring to make sure the rules are followed and to protect the safety of the workers.
For what I think is a definitive study on the health risks associated with secondhand smoke in the bar and restaurant workplace, google for "Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban," which was published in the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (46(9):887-905, September 2004. Repace, James MSc). The fulltext is out there somewhere.
-
no other type of worker has to decide whether or not to take a job based on the air quality of the job site (when it's not directly related to the nature of the work). i don't see why bar employees should be any different.
I've made these points elsewhere, but Tommy makes the crucial point very well.
These bans are not about protecting customers from secondhand smoke. Customers can choose to go elsewhere. They are about protecting workers in the workplace.
This is also not an issue of the government unfairly interfering with owners' rights. It has long been established in this country that the government can enact measures to protect workers from unnecessary hazards in the workplace. I don't see how a workplace smoking ban interferes with owners' rights any more than OSHA regulations or sexual harassment laws.
-
Yea, that one from SLT looks a lot like mine. I'll have to take a look, but I'd swear that mine have five wires on the narrow side for every one wire on the wide side.
I'll try to remember to get mine down and look.
-
Ah! You used the wide side of the chitarra. You know, I've never used that side. Never actually made pasta from that side. It may be that my wide side is a lot wider than yours as well. I got mine from friends in Abruzzo, and it's nothing like the ones I've seen for sale here (which tend to look like this one, whereas mine looks like the one on this page).
Your point is very well made about the pasta cutters that come with machines, though. I've never been happy with them. Even brand-new they don't separate the pasta strands to the extent that I would prefer, and you do get that "pinching" effect you describe. I prefer to simply roll the finished sheets of pasta into a cigar and cut them into whatever width I would like using a sharp knife.
The chitarra is cool to use, though, isn't it? I've been needing to re-wire mine so I can use them again (I have two). After a while, the wires seem to get stretched out too much. When I rewire, I also plan to quadruple wire each strand on the wide side so the strength of the wires on the two sides is more evenly balanced when the chitarra is tightened. With only single wiring for each strand on the wide side, the narrow side has about 5 times the number of wires compared to the wide side.
-
Looks good! Interesting that you cut it on a chitarra. Any particular reason why? When I do that -- and when I've had pasta alla chitarra in Abruzzo -- it's tended to be fairly thick (almost square) and rustic (I'll roll it by hand rather than in a machine).
-
This is something for which I think you'd need a good quality juice extractor.
-
Good question. I've never seen anyone use one here in the States. Most people would just use the back of a bar spoon to float liqueurs for a layered drink.
-
Not that worker safety isn't a legitimate issue, but I'm about 99% sure that that's pure spin -- a hook chosen because it makes the anti-smoking forces look like concerned citizens instead of self-righteous prigs. Not that they're not concerned, not that they are (all) prigs.
But this bill is not the result of restaurant workers riseng en masse to save their lungs. The worker safety angle is, if you'll excuse the expression, smoke and mirrors.
Oh, I'm quite sure you're right about that. But, of course, construction workers didn't exactly rise up en masse for OSHA regulations either.
The bottom line is that being exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke is bad for your health, and most of the time there is no reason people should have to be exposed to it. I don't think (although I don't know) that most of the people behind measures like this care whether or not you smoke. I think they care about whether they, and other people, have to breathe your smoke. This seems reasonable to me, and I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as "self-righteous prigs."
As someone who supports workplace antismoking measures myself, I couldn't care less whether people choose to smoke or not. I have been known to smoke a cigar every now and then myself, and I'm certainly not one of those people who wants to pass legislation that prevents people from doing things that are "bad for you." Heck, I do plenty of things that are "bad for you," starting with drinking way too much. Similarly, I don't get the impression that the people behind this legislation want to prevent people from, say, eating fatty meat.
But let's go back to my bad behavior: I drink too much. Now, my drinking too much doesn't affect the other people at the bar. Their alcohol-related health risk factors are not affected one bit by sitting next to me in a bar. On the other hand, drinking too much does affect other people, for example, on the roads when I am behind the wheel of a car. So, while I would not like for a bunch of self-righteous prigs to push legislation that limits my ability to drink too much in contexts where no one else is affected by my drinking, like a bar, I think it's just fine for there to be limitations on my blood alcohol levels in contexts, like driving, where other people are affected by that drinking. In fact, I think it's reasonable to be fairly restrictive about this because I recognize the fact that I don't have to drink. I feel pretty much the same way about smoking: I don't have any problem with the fact that some people choose to smoke, and I am happy for them to continue to smoke. But I recognize that smokers don't need to smoke, and I think it's reasonable to put limitations on smoking in contexts where there is a high likelihood that other people who are not in a position to choose to be elsewhere will be adversely affected by that behavior. . . like in the workplace.
-
Yes, they do use ginger juice plus sugar. It's not ginger infused simple, it's simple made from the water that comes from juicing the ginger. Maybe ginger syrup is a better name.
Interesting. So it's like a 1:1 syrup using ginger juice instead of water? If that's made up fresh every day, I'm sure it has plenty of bite. Sounds awesome, although impractical for home use due to the aforementioned loss-of-bite issues unless one will be making a lot of ginger drinks for a specific occasion.
Ginger gets its spicy bite from the compound gingerol, which is a relative of capsaicin. Heat (and presumably degradation over time) transforms gingerol into the compound zingerone, which is not spicy-hot like gingerol but is rather an aromatic flavor compound. Zingerone is not present in fresh ginger.
-
What a fun and interesting topic, Dave!
I think you have the Cosmo nailed as the drink of the 1990s and I like the wine spritzer as the drink of the 1970s. But I do wonder a bit about the other post-1950s era drinks... They're tricky.
Do you think the drink of the 1950s was really an untradry gin martini and not the vodka counterpart? I tend to think of the 50s as the decade that begain the vodka craze, and I also think of the 50s as the era where the highball overtook the "up cocktail" over in popularity. Perhaps a Moscow Mule? For sure, I'd think that the 1960s would have to be some kind of non-gin based highball. That's a tough one, of course, because the 60s were the beginning of the American cocktail's nadir.
-
These are militant nonsmokers who wish to impose their will upon others. Choose to work and eat elsewhere.
Your first point may be correct, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the militant nonsmokers are wrong. Although it is of course not an analogous situation, one could accurately say that suffragists imposed their will upon others through their work to obtain voting rights for women.
Your last point is also correct. A customer can always choose to eat elsewhere.
Your second point, however, is not well made. Suggesting that restaurant, airplane, bar and office workers who do not wish to be exposed to the risks of secondhand smoke should "choose to work elsewhere" is simply not acceptable. Any such argument you may make that restaurant and bar workers would apply equally well to workers in office buildings.
As I pointed out upthread, secondhand smoke is not a necessarily inherrent risk of working in these industries the way getting squashed with heavy machinery is a necessarily inherrent risk of the construction business. You can't construct skyscrapers without heavy machinery, but you can serve people food and/or drink without secondhand smoke. And, of course, the construction industry is highly regulated (some would say not highly enough) to mitigate the necessarily inherrent risk of being squashed by heavy machinery to the greatest extent possible.
Yes, in general I would agree with you that government regulations are designed to provide an employee with a safe working environment; however, respectfully, if the establishment allowed smoking when that person applied for a job and they took the job anyway, knowing that they hate to be around smoke and/or consider it a health hazard, isn't that their responsibility? Did they have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to not take a position in such an establishment? I know some out there would say that they didn't have a choice. Again, I would disagree. Yes, they did have a choice and they made it. They chose to take a job in an environment that they deemed offensive/deleterious to their health in a city that for some time has had many restaurants that were smoke free. Oh well, the point is moot anyway, Samuel. Though I wonder why having 80-90% smokefree and a measly 10-20% of restaurants that would allow smoking would have imposed such a "hardship?"
No, this doesn't really work -- and I'll tell you why: If this argument worked today for bars and restaurants, then it would have worked for office buildings and airplanes as well. And they we'd be right back in the 1980s with smoking allowed just about everywhere, and no way for workers to protect themselves from secondhand smoke.
I find that it is instructive and useful to try to apply any argument against smoking restrictions in the bar and restaurant workplace to the office workplace. If it's something you agree should be regulated and largely disallowed in office buildings, then it's something you should likewise agree should be regulated and largely disallowed in the restaurant and bar workplace.
I have a large number of friends in the NYC bar business, and without fail (smokers included) they are all overjoyed with their now smoke-free workplaces and feel that their overall health and well-being has improved.
-
No Mr Kinsey, work is something you need to do. Going out to restaurants is something you like to do. I find the distinction very simple. If I do not like the food at a certain place, I do not eat there. If I do not like the smoke, I have other choices. Government interference in something I have a CHOICE in, is absurd. Comparing the two as the same is absurd also.
raisab, you are entirely missing my point -- and indeed the point of all such legislation.
Workplace nonsmoking legislation is not intended to protect you, the customer. As you correctly point out, you have the choice to go elsewhere. Workplace nonsmoking legislation is intended to protect workers in the workplace -- in this case, workers in the restaurant and bar indistry who work in bars and restaurants. As you correctly point out, "work is something you need to do," and it is something that various government bodies have determined that workers who "need to work" in office buildings, airplanes, restaurants and bars (etc.) should be able to do without exposing themselves to the unnecessary risk of exposure to secondhand smoke. According to your own logic, this is not "government interference in something one has a choice in," but rather government regulation of workplace safety.
I would like to know the percentage of restaurant employees that smoke... I think the number would surprise a lot of folks. Protect them from what? They already smoke. The ban is to placate militant non-smokers who falsely argue that they want the ban to protect the worker. They want the ban because they dispise smoke. Nothing more. If you smoke, go outside. If don't, keep your opinions to yourself.There is ample scientific evidence (I have cited some very compelling studies in these forums) that the hazards of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars is significant. And it really doesn't matter whether the percentage of restaurant and bar workers who smoke is 25% or 75%. The nonsmokers still deserve protection -- not to mention that even the smokers are exposing themselves to increased risk by working in a smoke-filled room. Any argument one can make otherwise would apply equally to smoking in office buildings, airplanes, etc.
FWIW, my anecdotal experience suggests to me that the percentage of bar and restaurant FOH workers who smoke is not meaningfully greater than perhaps 35%.
-
I do belive that Ginger (simple) Syrup is the way Milk and Honey, has been making thier Moscow Mules, Gin Gin Mules, Rye Press's (I used the secular term so as not offend anyone) Bourbon, Apple & ginger's, ect. for a little over six years.
Interesting. For some reason I thought M&H used ginger juice (or maybe they also use ginger juice?). I wonder how often the ginger syrup is made and if it is a cold or hot infusion. I've found that ginger syrup loses its bite after a day or two -- but of course sometimes you want the ginger flavor without the bite. I suppose one could use a round and mellow hot-infused ginger syrup for flavor and then muddle fresh ginger to order for a customized amount of bite.
-
I would recommend not making "cocktails" per se, but rather that you offer house-created aperitifs. House made ratafias, for example, might be a good idea (a specialty of 'Tafia in Houston). You could also experiment with infusing or flavoring vermouths, or even making your own.
But without distilled spirits, I don't think there's likely to be much interest in the "shaken or stirred" kind of cocktail.
-
I am against such government control of any of our personal habits or business habits.
I don't quite understand this. You're saying that you're against things like government-mandated workplace safety standards, sexual harassment laws, nondiscrimination laws, etc. (these would all fall under "government control of our business habits")?
It's a common misconception to suppose that workplace smoking bans are enacted to protect customers. They are enacted to protect workers. They have nothing to do with whether you or I want to be around cigarette smoke because, as you say, we can choose to go elsewhere. Saying that workers can "choose to work elsewhere" or can "choose to work in another industry" doesn't seem to cut it in this case (inhaling secondhand smoke is not a necessary risk of working in the restaurant or bar industry the way that the possibility of being burned alive is a necessary risk of putting out oil rig fires).
-
Some good information on Wikipedia here.
-
Mmmmm... A Ramos Fizz sounds good. Usually I end up having a lot of these:
-
A little diastatic malt powder in the dough should also make a difference.
-
I'm certainly with you on the listing of sauté pans by quarts; heck, I'm Canadian, so my spatial reckoning of a quart is pretty piss poor!
I don't see why. Just simply multiply the number of quarts by 0.9464 to get liters. Nothing to it!
-
I'd imagine that spices could carry some evil bugs. These come from all over the world and are not steralized. They are grown with unknown surroundings and dried in the open air. Maybe it is a good idea steralize spices before they go low and slow. hmm.
Spices do carry all kinds of nasty things. Which is why they are irradiated.
-
Is it kind of a waste to use copper on electric coil stove top? Or is it just as good on electric coils as gas?
Also, I think of sauteing as shaking or moving the pan around alot, does the weight of a copper saute pan make this more difficult or do you use a different method?
Sorry I didn't see this one earlier...
To a certain extent, I'd say that using heavy copper on an electric coil stove top is a waste of money. A big part of the reason copper is so nice is that it is extremely responsive to changes in the heat setting. The nice thing about a gas stove is that it responds immediately when you turn the flame down, and that response can be translated into a responsive pan. Electric stoves -- and especially the coil types -- are notorious for being very slow to respond to changes in the heat setting. So it your heat source is slow to respond, it automatically means that your pan will be slow to respond. This means that is is impossible to reap one of the major rewards of using copper.
Some people do have trouble with the weight of copper -- although I have to wonder whether there is a truly significant difference in the weight of a fully loaded aluminum pan and a fully loaded copper pan of equivalent size. The only move I could see for which heavy copper would potentially create a problem due to its weight is the "flip-toss" move where you are trying to turn the ingredients over in a fry pan. For that, I'll often use two hands. For the classic saute technique in a saute pan, all you should need to do is shake the pan back and forth on the burner without lifting it. The food should bounce off the straight sides and tumble around in the pan. I also find that, when lifting heavy and brace the rest of the handle's length against the underside of your forearm. Your mileage may vary, of course. I have strong hands and, if pictures are any evidence, "Popeye forearms."
Here are my primary questions:- Does All Clad's newer MC2 (Master Chef 2) line still have a higher aluminum content than the Stainless line?
- Have I reached the correct conclusion in choosing a sauté pan over a fry pan (both with lids)?
- If so, would I be best served by a 3.0 qt. (10-1/2" x 2-9/16"), a 4.0 qt. (10-1/2" x 3-1/4") or a 6.0 qt. (12 7/8" x 2 3/4") sauté pan?
I haven't had a chance to measure the MC2 line myself yet, but I have to believe that it still has more aluminum than the Stainless line. Are you locked into All-Clad? You could get a lot more aluminum where it counts at a much lower price going with something like Sitram or another thick disk-bottom design.
Yes, I think your instincts are right about getting a saute pan. It's very versatile, and you already have two frypans.
As long as your stove is powerful enough, I'd suggest you go for the largest diameter pan. Depth is not so important in a saute pan, so there is no significant functional difference between the 3 quart and 4 quart pans above (as an aside, I think it's silly for manufacturers like All-Clad to list saute pans by quarts instead of by inches in diameter).
- Does All Clad's newer MC2 (Master Chef 2) line still have a higher aluminum content than the Stainless line?
-
Q: sam, do you (or anyone reading this thread) know if this 'heavy gauge' mauviel saucepan they're offering at wms-sonoma is a regular old 2mm version or a 2.5mm one?
At first look, I'd have to agree with gkg680. It appears to be from the 2.0 mm line. One thing to look for is a rolled lip on the pan (which this saucepan appears to have). As far as I know, a rolled lip is not employed in Mauviel's 2.5 mm line.
-
I recently read a very interesting book on the science of champagne
Sam, what book?
Uncorked : The Science of Champagne by Gérard Liger-Belair.
The March of Booze Through Time
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
That's a good list, Dave. I would make one suggestion/amendment. The drink of the 1980s should be a frozen Margarita.
As for the drink of the 2000s, it becomes very difficult. I see cocktail culture in the new century taking two divergent paths right now: One path is what I call the "new old school." This would be the school to which you & I and most of the people we like belong, grounded in the idea of continuing the great tradition that was interrupted by Prohibition and largely ignoring the "three different kinds of spiced rum blended with ice and 5 different kinds of fruit juice" mixing that happened in the 80s and 90s. These tend to be dry, strong drinks based on traditional spirits. But I think there is also the "new new school" path, where the idea seems to be to continue in the direction set in the 80s and 90s, but presumably with better quality. These tend to be sweeter, fruit-flavored drinks based on flavored vodkas and flavored/spiced light rums, etc. A good example of a "new old school" drink might be the Little Italy from Pegu Club (Rittenhouse bonded rye, Cynar, M&R Sweet) and a good example of a "new new school" drink might be the Wet Water Martini from Cherry (Beefeater Wet, Chambord, Power-C Vitamin Water).