slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Here is a brief quote from the Times:
"Our laws are a reflection of our culture," said Joe Moore, an alderman who has proposed banning the sale of foie gras in the city, as he addressed the council's health committee on Tuesday. "Our culture does not condone the torture of innocent and defenseless creatures. And we as a society believe all God's creatures should be treated humanely."This statement, in my opinion, reflects the outlook of someone who either a) doesn't know the first thing about how ducks are raised for foie gras, or b) doesn't think humans should be eating other animals.
-
I've never enjoyed fois gras for the same reason I've never enjoyed veal: I keep thinking of how it was created. I don't think laws are necessarily the answer, but at the same time, I don't really have much sympathy for people that are up in arms about it. Yeah, it's just a duck/goose, but I believe in karma. Also, anything that raises the hackles of the fois gras and caviar crowd appeals to my rebellious streak, for whatever reason. Maybe those people can spend their fois gras budget on some food for hurricane refugees.
This post perfectly illustrates the two most common anti-foioe arguments that come up in the foie gras debate:
1. "I've never enjoyed fois gras for the same reason I've never enjoyed veal: I keep thinking of how it was created."
Most people making this kind of statement don't understand enough about how foie gras and veal (etc.) are created to understand whether it is cruel or not. There is a ton of bad information and outright propaganda out there about how both foie gras and veal are created, and I can almost guarantee that whatever you think about how these products are made does not reflect a) current industry practices, and b) an informed understanding of animal physiology/psychology. Many people still think that ducks and geese have their feet nailed to the floor and run screaming when it is time for gavage, etc. This is simply not true.
Most people making this statement also don't have any real understanding about how other animal foods we eat are "made." Take a look inside a factory farm for pigs or chickens some time. Then take a look at a place like Hudson Valley Foie Gras. I can guarantee that anyone who does this will come away thinking the same as I: that if they had to choose, they would rather spend their lives as a Hudson Valley duck than a Tyson chicken. And yet, we seldom hear people saying "I've never enjoyed chicken or pork: I keep thinking of how it was created."
2. "Maybe those people can spend their fois gras budget on some food for hurricane refugees."
In other words, "that foie gras stuff is only for rich people anyway." As Ronnie points out, eating foie gras and being charitable are mutually exclusive. Just because foie gras is considered a luxury ingredient doesn't necessarily mean that we should do away with it or that arguments in support of foie gras aren't valid. The fact is that there are places in the world where eating foie gras is considered part of everyone's diet on an occasional basis, and foie gras is slowly finding its way into the middlebrow consumer's diet as well. Any time you can find a cryovaced foie gras at Costco or Stew Leonard's, it's not the exclusive domain of rich folks any more.
-
Look, here's the fact about serious dieting and going out to restaurants: You have to think of the restaurant experience as a big splurge -- as "breaking your diet -- and adjust your consumption for the next few days. As I posted some time ago, it is not the restaurant's responsibility to make food that is low in calories, fat, salt, carbohydrates, whatever. . . except for the few rare cases where that's part of the restaurant's schtick. It's the restaurant's job to make food that tastes good.
So if someone is trying to lose a lot of weight but loves dining out. . . well, them's the breaks. When you're dieting, you have to give some things up. And going out to dinner with much frequency is one of those things. I really like cocktails, and yet I cut way back when I'm trying to lose weight. Someone else may really like pound cake, etc. I guess the point is that it's both naive to think that restaurants aren't making food that's full of fat and calories, and it's unrealistic to expect them to make big adjustments to accommodate dieters.
I don't offer the foregoing as a gloating thin person, by the way. I have been watching my weight and wanting to lose weight for many years now. And I've been in situations where I've been on an out-of-town gig for an extended period of time where the only eating options available to me were restaurants. So I know what it's like. Not for nothing do most opera singers begin to struggle with weight gain issues when their careers begin to take off and they find themselves away from home for an increasing percentage of the year. The solution in these situations, by the way, seems to be twofold: portion control (i.e., not finishing your plate) and making sure that daily exercise is a priority (i.e., make sure that wherever you are staying has access to a nearby gym or bring along "travel weights," etc.).
-
It definitely adds an order of magnitude to the coordination of a tasting menu if the kitchen is trying to execute two different tasting menus for the same table. Some restaurants do it, like Per Se, but I can understand why restaurants at a lower pricepoint and level of service would balk at the task.
-
Yea. The moral of this story is that not al HFCS is created equal. The HFCS that soda manufacturers use contains only 42-55% fructose. It's called "high fructose" because the normal fructose content would be more like 10% or less. I have a hard time believing that anyone could get away with selling this product as "fructose." There are intensive methods that can be used to incrase the fructose content to more like 90%, however, and it would not be inappropriate to market this as "fructose."
FWIW, most of the fearmongering about HFCS has to do with people thinking that the fructose is the bad part, not the glucose. Not saying that I agree, but that's the general rap. . .
-
You mean applejack and calvados together?
I like the Apple Blow Fizz, but made with Laird's bonded instrad of calvados -- it seems a little less sweet and a little rougher than most cocktail-quality calvados.
-
slkinsey - I like your turkey two-ways approach. I was thinking about doing a deconstructed turkey to allow different cooking methods (and textures) which you've captured perfectly.
Thanks. I really do think deconstruction/different treatment is the best way to get the most out of a turkey. It's just too much meat with too widely-divergent properties to cook in one piece with good success on both dark and white meats.
This year I'm going to refine it a step further by stripping out the turkey tenderloins, making a mousse out of the tenderloins that I will use to "glue" the two breasts together, and doing the resulting more-or-less cylindrical result sous vide with black truffles. Should make dinner execution even more simple, as timing will be les critical on the turkey breasts and I'll free up oven time/space by not cooking any turkey in the oven.
-
Still having fun playing with genever. It really is amazing the way you open the bottle, smell the aroma, taste the spirit straight. . . everything says "juniper" and the malty quality is hardly noticable. Yet when mixed, the juniper quality largely retreats into the background and the malt character comes to the fore.
-
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, because it's all about the food as far as I am concerned.
I come from a very small extended family. Both my parents are only children, I had only onre surviving granparent on each side for most of my childhood, and we lived very far away (Boston) from any relatives of the second cousin variety (Texas). So, when I was growing up, Thanksgiving dinner was always a group affair organized with other small families at our Episcopal church. Perhaps this is why I don't feel like Thanksgiving dinner "has" to include anything other than turkey and dressing -- and even with that, I have been known to play fast and loose with the format. I think it all started when I decided to make a turducken for Thanksgiving one year. After a while, it had turned into something else entirely. This is what we did last year:
Marinated CruditésCranberry Champagne Cocktail
– – –
Kumamoto Oyster On The Half-Shell With Cucumber Granita
Mantanía Moschofilero, Tselepos, 2003
– – –
Cauliflower Soup With Puréed Spinach and Curry Oil
Montlouis Sur Loire "Dionys," Domaine Alex-Mathur, 2002
– – –
Tuna Carpaccio With Mixed Herb Salad
Rheingau Riesling Trocken, Weingut Robert Weil, 2003
– – –
"Brussels Sprouts Four Ways"
crème brûlée - gratin - sautéed with guanciale - shredded "slaw"
Vin de Table Gamay "Le P'tit Tannique Coule Bien," Domaine Thierry Puzelat, 2003
– – –
Lemon-Thyme Sorbet
Moscato d'Asti "Bricco Quaglia," Azienda Agricola La Spinetta di Giorgio Rivetti, Piemonte, 2003
– – –
"Turkey Two Ways" [recipe and description here]
Cornbread Dressing, Foie Gras, Black Truffle Carpaccio
Vino De La Tierra El Terrerazo "Mestizaje," Bodega Mustiguillo, 2003
Syrah, H. Coturri & Sons, Crane Vinyards, Sonoma Valley, 2001
– – –
Bourbon Bread Pudding
Cranberry Cheese Cake
Pecan Tart
Sugarless Apple Pie
Coffee
– – –
Chocolate Truffles and Palmiers
Selection of Bourbon, Scotch, Grappa
A detailed recounting and discussion of the design, planning and execution of this dinner may be found here.
-
I don't see too many people speaking of muddling the limes. Am I the only one?
-
I gather that most everyone is simply building their mojitos in the glass?
I find that I get too many bits of stuff floating around that way, and I am not fond of straining lime pulp through my teeth. I like muddling lime halves; adding sugar, rum, and mint; shaking hard with a few big pieces of ice; double straining into the glass; adding a lime shell, fizz water and plenty of crushed ice; then sliding a few mint leaves down the sides, maybe adding a sprig on top.
-
Three things here:
First, as interesting as the ethics of mouse trapping may be, let's keep this discussion about food, shall we? Which is to say, unless you're planning to eat the mouse. . .
Second, I do think that it gives one an added appreciation that the meat you are about to eat was once a living animal if you hunt or attend/assist with the slaughter and breakdown of an animal at least once. That said, most people living in urban centers simply do not have that option.
Third, don't for a moment think that the only way animals are killed for food is when they are raised and slaughtered for consumption. More animals probably lose their lives as a result of vegetable farming, they just aren't cute doe-eyed cows.
-
Boomsma Jonge has hit the City. I scored a couple of bottles this afternoon, and had to give the Improved Holland Gin Cock-Tail a try. Deliciously malty. I'll have to bring a bottle down to some friends who have a few bottled of Bols salted away for a direct comparison.
One thing I noticed is that my IHGC was a good bit pinker in color than others I've had. Could it be that they're making it with Angostura instead of Peychaud's?
-
1. Was wine and liquor raised by 20% as well? If so, does that mean a drink at the bar is now 20% more and the service charge applies there as well?
I don't know the specifics. What I've been told is that prices increased by various percentages, some more than 20%/some less than 20%. These increases might even be different from bottle to bottle or drink to drink.
2. If everyone is paid a salary, does that mean if the 20% doesn't cover salaries, the restaurant will subsidize the rest? Conversely, if the service charge money is more than salaries, where does that go?3. You mentioned what they don't do with "extra" money, but what do they do with it? Does it go into the "general fund."
What I get out of this is that the whole "service charge" idea is a red herring. There is no service charge. They salaried their waitstaff, raised prices to account for this expense, and put the words "service included" on the menu to let patrons know that the waitstaff is not working for tips. The raise in prices was so that they could include these salaries in the budget, and while I think it's easier to explain to the public that way, I don't think it's accurate to call the price increase a "service charge." Let us assume for a moment that the ball boys at the US Open had historically been unpaid volunteers who this year had to be compensated. If the price of a US Open ticket were increased to account for this new expense, would it be useful to refer to it as a "ball boy charge?" Similarly, when the price of groceries goes up due to increased transportation costs associated with the rising price of gasoline, do we call that increase a "gasoline charge?"
Based on how Per Se does their bookkeeping, it may very well be impossible to determine how much "extra" or "less" money they are bringing in through the various price increases under the new system balanced against the new salaries. More to the point, there may be little reason for them to do so. It will become only more complicated as time goes by and the overall compensation picture evolves due to raises, new hires, etc. I'm sure they will proceed to balance income from sales against their expenses -- including compensation, rent, raw materials, electricity, etc. -- to make a profit. Just like any other business. If they aren't making enough money, they will make adjustments somewhere (raise prices, cut staff or reduce salaries, change suppliers, reduce food costs, etc.). Just like any other business. Needless to say, a place like Per Se is more likely to raise prices in this scenario than resort to most other solutions.
How do they monitor the cash tips that are given to waitstaff, bartenders, coat checkers, etc.?I have no idea, but I assume they get to keep these small amounts, as they are real gratuities.
-
I was lucky enough to be able to get some information directly from the source at Per Se, so I hopefully can clear some things up and contribute some new information.
Althouth they call it a "service charge system," there is in fact no "service charge" per se at Per Se (pun inevitable). This is to say that there is no item on the menu saying that "prices are subject to a service charge of X%." Rather, prices have been raised -- some by more than 20%, some by less -- and the menu now indicates that service is included. The $175 menu is now being sold for $210, which is a 20% increase.
Contrary to reports, there has not been greater-than-expected or greater-than-usual turnover at Per Se with the rollout of the new structure. In fact, turnover was much greater when the change was made at French Laundry, perhaps because there is a significantly smaller talent pool from which to draw at Yountville.
Per Se is also not dividing up the "extra" take every night and doling it out to various members of the staff based on some formula. Under the new system, everyone in the house is paid an individual salary commensurate with his or her performance, experience, expertise, seniority and position -- just like a "real job." This means that some servers are making less than before, some are making more, and the kitchen all received a nice raise.
There are several things worth expanding upon. Keller's team doesn't view the staff as divided between FOH and BOH, but rather as one unified team. As such, it is important to them that everyone have an opportunity to excel and advance. It is a sad fact that most four star restaurants don't pay the cooks a living wage. Whereas before servers were being paid equally out of a tip pool, they are now salaried according to performance and experience. This presumably means that servers will be rewarded solely for providing good service, as defined and determined by Per Se's management, and not for upselling and other tip-increasing gimmicks that are not necessarily related to good service. Servers who were "riding out the tip pool" or who resorted to tricks of the trade. . . yea, they are likely to see a reduction in compensation. But, on the other hand, if they get with the program and stick with Per Se, they have an opportunity to make a lot more. This strikes me as the kind of person they would rather have around at Per Se. It is also noteworthy that the new system gives Per Se's management much greater ability to manage service at the restaurant, and it was pointed out to me that French Laundry did not win the James Beard Service Award until after they changed to the new system.
-
Really Dirk shouldn't be calling it "anonymity," but rather "having no relationships or contact within the restaurant industry." Because that's what he's really promoting. It strains credulity to believe that any regular restaurant critic is ever substantially anonymous.
It does make it look a bit different, though, when it reads: "all other things being equal, having no relationships or contact within the restaurant industry adds to the value of the review for everyone but the critic."
-
Anonymity is a red herring
Just repeating this over and over is not going to alter the fact that, all other things being equal, anonymity adds to the value of the review for everyone but the critic.
Er. . . neither is your repetition of this assertion.
-
But isn't it possible to achieve both anonymity and involvement.
As a real-life practical matter, I think this is impossible.
Even involvement as a food writer, but anonymity as a restaurant reviewer?
Put yourself in the shoes of a restaurateur. If "food writer Jerry McAngus" came to eat at your restaurant with several friends four or five times over the course of a few weeks and then never returned, and "restaurant critic Helen Hepplewhite" came out with a review a few weeks later. . . how long do you think it would take you and your colleagues to connect the dots?
Given a situation where the writer doesn't write very many reviews and where there is a substantial lag time between the reviewer's visits to a restaurant and the appearance of the review, it might be possible. This would have to be something like a once-monthly review with a two to three month lag time to work for any length of time in a major restaurant city.
-
They're not supposed to be that complex and deep, just refreshing and drunk on their own, icy cold.
Oh, I agree. And that's the way I like them: on their own, icy cold.
However, the OP is planning on using this for Margaritas. As a cocktail ingredient I find them too one-note and certainly not worth the trouble and expense versus using Cointreau -- especially since experience tells me that Cointreau is likely to be much better no matter what.
-
As I said then, there is no reason why a restaurant critic cannot learn everything he or she needs to know by experiencing the end result; namely the meal. The only perceivable benefits of the schmoozing approach to restaurant criticism are benefits for the critic himself.
I simply don't believe this is true. Or rather it is only true of a certain kind of review that offers a certain kind of limited information. I believe that there is more and different information to be gained from a deeper level of involvement, and experience tells me that critics who have that deeper level of involvement tend to produce produce more informative reviews.
I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to characterize all critic/industry interaction as "schmoozing" either, if you mean it in the pejorative sense of "to chat with someone in order to gain a personal advantage for one's self."
But isn't it possible to achieve both anonymity and involvement.As a real-life practical matter, I think this is impossible.
-
. . . what I don't agree with, and what no one, despite some impressively convoluted logic, has demonstrated, is the assertion that anonymity and good writing are mutually exclusive.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are arguing is that there is a great deal of information to be gained by interacting with chefs and restaurateurs -- information that can inform the work of writers and reviewers and thus enrich what is passed on to readers. What people are further arguing is that these potential gains are lost to the "anonyous" writer or reviewer who maintains no relationships in the industry. And what people are yet further arguing is that many, albeit not all, of the justifications given for anonymity are complete bunk (e.g., that such writers are, in fact, actually anonymous and aren't receiving special treatment anyway). Here in New York we have the clear example that most of the very best criticism and most informative writing has been done by writers like David Rosengarten who are deeply involved in the business and have many relationships in the industry, and further that most of the worst criticism and least informative writing has been done by writers who were not involved in the business and didn't have relationships in the industry.
So what people are saying is not that anonymity and good writing are mutually exclusive, but rather that anonymity and involvement with the industry are mutally exclusive and that involvement with the industry is highly coorelated with better, more informative, more informed food writing and criticism.
-
I've been recognized and received special treatment at some restaurants because I'm on eGullet.
I have too, but I picked myself up from the sidewalk, wiped off the dirt and grease from my trousers and ate next door.
You were lucky. I had to make bail.
-
A related question is whether it is even possible for a restaurant critic to experience the "common man's meal" at a restaurant. You don't think Bruni is getting VIP treatment every time he sits down at a restaurant table?
At restaurants that know a review is coming, he is probably recognized every time. I doubt that Bruni truly ever had an "anonymous" meal at Perry St, The Modern, or Alto. At Le Bernardin, Daniel, and Jean-Georges, and a few other places of that ilk, he will be recognized instantly.
But take another look at the range of places he visits. A fair number of them are non-high-end places that have no particular reason to expect him. . .
You don't think that every single restaurant out there that has pretensions of getting a main review in the NY Times (especially if recently opened) doesn't know what Frank Bruni looks like? Maybe have a picture of him, along with other critics and notable food figures on file somewhere?
I was in a bar recently when William and Nancy Grimes came in and took a seat at the bar. They were instantly recognized. I also think the kinds of questions one asks, and the kinds of things one orders, etc. will alert the FOH staff of just about any potentially star-rated restaurant (Sripraphai notwithstanding) to take a closer look at certain customers. I've been recognized and received special treatment at some restaurants because I'm on the eGullet Society staff, for Pete's sake. If this is happening to me 15% of the time, I am quite sure it's happening to Frank Bruni 95% of the time.
-
. . . the Juniperotivo: lime juice, simple syrup, pomegranite syrup (actually molasses I think?), mint, Junipero gin. That's a drink I'm going to be messing around with for a while.
This is a great sweet-sour drink created by Jerri Banks.
Juniperotivo2.0 oz : Junipero gin
1.0 oz : fresh lime juice
1.0 oz : simple syrup
0.5 oz : pomegranate molasses
2 sprigs of mint
Shake all ingredients vigorously with ice. Strain into chilled cocktail glass and garnish with mint leaf.
This is one drink where the brand of gin makes a big difference. There really is no substitute for Junipero in this one, although Tanqueray might do in a pinch.
Trotter and Tramonto square off over Foie Gras
in Food Traditions & Culture
Posted
Exactly. It's about the hypocrisy of people who are anti-foie gras but eat regular supermarket chicken -- a group which includes about 95% of the non-vegans who are against foie gras, I would estimate.
derricks, I'm not sure that the example of Redwood Hills Farm goats versus Hudson Valley Foie Gras ducks is a particularly useful one, because the goats aren't being raised for slaughter. Also interesting to hear that the "quip about preferring to be a foie gras duck over a Tyson chicken" has become standard -- since it was born right in these forums.
What hasn't been proven to my satisfaction is that raising ducks for foie gras, given the best modern methods and techniques such as are in use at Hudson Valley (the largest foie gras producer in the US), is inherently inhumane. Especially not when compared to the majority of other things we do every day to get food (dragging a fish through the water by a hook stuck through its mouth and then drowning it in the air, finishing cattle on grain, etc.). One can, of course, take the position that anything we do to animals for our own gain, including domesticating them and raising them for slaughter, is inherently inhumane. But that position doesn't particularly have a place in a discussion just about foie gras.
The fact is that the average person who is against foie gras might be characterized as someone who a) doesn't understand duck physiology and psychology or the actual gavage process, b) who has bought in to some of the more extreme propaganda, and c) who thinks of foie gras as "rich people's food" and therefore doesn't mind getting rid of it. You can bet that most of these people would be dead set against applying similar thinking and legal regulation to the production of chickens if it meant a jump from sixty-nine cents a pound to $2.69 a pound at the local grocery store.