slkinsey

This brings up a good argument against the widespread use of labeling for irradiated foods, namely that the general public has very little understanding of what "irradiated" means, tends to confuse it with "nuclear radiation," and tends to believe that irradiated foods become radioactive and that the irradiation process causes nuclear waste. None of these things are true. In fact, the X-ray and electron beam irradiators used today are non-nuclear. It is not the case, by the way, that the only positive benefit of irradiation is increases shelf life. We're already doing things to increase shelf life, but irradiation can be used instead of fumigants such as methyl bromide. In addition, irradiation could help to prevent the worldwide spread of pests and plant diseases as fresh food items are shipped around the globe. rancho_gordo makes a good point in suggesting it's possible that, "if the food were handled right in the first place we wouldn't need to go to such extremes." However, it's unclear to me that one can handle food "right enough" when it is being shipped from Peru or China to New York or Chicago. Tana: The whole DDT thing comes mostly from hysteria that began with the publishing of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Most of this is not founded in science at all, but rather in politics. In fact, DDT is quite safe for humans compared to most pesticides, although it can cause the eggshells of certain birds (notably the Bald Eagle) to become unsustainably weak. There is no sound scientific evidence linking DDT to cancer. When one considers that something like 1 million people die every year from malaria, and that some estimate as many as 60 million preventable deaths due to insect-borne illnesses resulting from the various DDT bans, it makes a pretty good case for the judicious use of DDT in the right contexts. Something to think about the next time West Nile Virus raises its head in your town.

Without giving you her entire CV, I can tell you that Dr. Berma M. Kinsey, otherwise known to me as "mom," has never worked for a "corporation" -- unless you count universities as corporations. IIRC she has been a teacher and researcher throughout her career, having worked places like Harvard School of Medicine, Northeastern University, Baylor College of Medicine, and Rice University. Over the years she has worked extensively with radiation. I'm sure you can look her up in the relevant journals.

Hmmph. Maybe I'm wrong about that, then. Wouldn't be the first time.

For speed, nothing can beat the regular old Boston shaker used with a hawthorne or julep strainer. For home, use, however, I prefer to use something from my modest collection of inherited and acqired vintage shakers/pitchers. I've heard people assert that metal shakers make for a colder drink, usually citing the fact that metal is a much better thermal conductor than glass. While it is true that metal is a better thermal conductor than glass, this should actually make a metal shaker worse, not better, at chilling the drink -- as it more readily conducts heat from the surrounding environment (your hands, for example) into its contents. If this is, in fact, true -- and I won't believe it until I do the experiments myself -- it likely has something to do with glass shakers having a greater thermal capacity compared to metal shakers. This being the case, a pre-chilled glass shaker should actually perform best. In terms of glasses, I like the old ones better as well. Or, failing that, older style glasses. I like them around 5 - 6 ounces, sized to hold a drink at around 3-4 ounces. Lately I've been influenced away from the standard "V" glass and have grown fond of cocktail glasses with more of a "globe" or "coupe" shape. Drinking out of a good glass makes a big difference, and can really influence the mood of the cocktail. Splificator's "Tombstone" cocktail, a fine drink with an "old fashioned" feel is served in a glass shape that I really like at Flatiron Lounge.

Just to be clear. . . as far as I know no one is suggesting that things like fresh uncanned (or otherwise unenclosed) tomatoes, such as one finds in the produce section of the grocery store, be irradiated as a matter of course. Right?

I presume this is a joke (although you can never be sure), because the planet Earth is irradiated every day... by the Sun.

In terms of good quality light cookware, aluminum is the way to go: either clad aluminum or stainless with an aluminum disk bottom, depending on the pan/application. Unfortunately, however, there is no getting entirely away from the weight issue. A casserole full of stew or a saute pan full of chicken is going to be heavy no matter what. To a certain extent, your friend's difficulties are probably more profitably addressed through some modifications in cooking technique rather than specific cookware choices. For example, it may be better to use tongs to transfer the chicken from the saute pan to the serving dish a few pieces at a time rather than lifting/carrying/emptying the whole full pan. Once the pan is on the stove, there aren't too many situations where one absolutely has to lift the pan.

Actually, I didn't end up using a wok stand. I thought of using a wok stand because I had assumed that my Souss tagine would be more or less wok-shaped with a fully curved bottom. But the tagine I got had more or less a flat bottom. So I ended up using a heat diffuser (~3 mm thick aluminum disk). That worked fine. I kept the heat on my crappy NYC apartment stove on low, but could have gone lower. I was under some time constraints and wasn't able to go as low/slow as I might ultimately like to do. Next time, I plan to try it on the lowest heat setting all the way. Yea, I'm really looking forward to that. Actually, considering how inexpensive these tagines are (my kitchen is full of very expensive stainless lined heavy copper), so maybe I have a peculiar perspective, I may pick up another one. I can see how two tagines would really be best for dinner parties, and that way I could use each tagine for different styles. Perhaps I'll buy a Riffi tagine for poultry and use the Souss tagine for beef and lamb. Is duck used in Moroccan cooking? Interesting. I found that using no liquid at all worked perfectly for me. I looked at those recipes and thought, "these seem to call for reducing the liquid at the end -- something that isn't really easy to do with a clay tagine. . . so I'll just use no liquid at all and probably end up with the right amount/consistency of sauce." So far, so good on that score.

I've been to the mountaintop. I have seen the glory that is cooking in an unglazed tagine. I have tasted of it, and declared it good. After curing my Souss tagine and rubbing plenty of olive oil into it over the course of several days, I finally had the time to put it to use. I made a beef and cauliflower tagine based on the recipe from Paula's book. Loved it! The striking thing was how incredibly tender the beef turned out. Some of this, no doubt, is due to the fact that I bought my beef chuck from a very good butcher who cut the pieces from a gigantic hunk of shoulder to order (they do this kind of thing as a matter of course). But I've made plenty of braised beef dishes with meat from these guys in the past that didn't turn out as tender and juicy as the meat in this tagine. There's definitely something special that the unglazed clay and gentle heat imparts. I wonder how much this may also be due to the fact that the meat is not pre-browned and comes up to temperature so slowly. One question for Paula: I notice that the recipes in your book are really geared towards using regular Western cooking vessels, and that the cooking instructions seem to be designed with this in mind (bringing things to a boil at the beginning, generally shorter cooking times, etc.) -- all entirely sensible given the date of publication. Do you have any general instructions about "converting" these recipes for use with a tagine? I mixed the meat with the spices and grated onion and put all that into the cold tagine to slowly come up to temperature, then I added the cauliflower towards the end. Is this the general procedure for cooking in a tagine? So tasty, and easy too. One could easiluy mix together the meat, spices and onion the day before and then just drop the whole thing into the tagine upon returning home from work. It requires very little watching.

Exactly. The social contract says that a certain percentage tip is expected if you receive adequate service. This is amply demonstrated by the myriad posts in these forums from members who have been embarassed by friends and/or relatives who are habitual "low tippers." Tipping <15% for adequate service in an American restaurant breaks the social contract. On the other hand, it is entirely within the social contract to tip <15% if the service is substandard. Now, some people may argue that one should have an understanding of what is/is not under the server's control before making the determination to lower the tip. I would be one of those people. That said, I would also point out that, even for things that are not under the server's control, there are things that can be said/done to improve the diner's disposition. Customers like to feel that the server is on their side. If a dish comes out late and cold, for example, one is always favorably disposed towards a server who apologises profusely, says "this isn't up to our standards" and replaces/comps the dish.

Well, there are two questions. First is the question of why people tip. This seems like a simple question: people tip when and where it a cultural expectation. I agree that, in America anyway, tipping is no longer a "reward" but rather part of the social contract. Second is the question of why people tip large amounts. That is a question that has many answers, depending on who is being asked. I am sure that some people are big tippers for the very reasons you suggest. I tip a minimum of 20%, which I consider standard. This is because I have many friends in the food business and I know that they depend on this income to support themselves.

This is true, in an absolute sense. However, for me there is a difference between leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $150 and leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $15. And, the fact is that with the percentages I'm talking about (3% or less) it's a very small difference to the customer. Even on a very large bill of around $500, we're talking about less than $15. On most bills, it's more like one or two dollars. My feeling is: if I have the means to spend $100 on dinner, spending $102 isn't going to mean much to me. Two dollars is, after all, only two dollars. Yes, I think you have made your feelings on this subject abundantly clear -- and they are not unreasonable points that you make. If you would like to start a thread on the inherent problems in the "working for tips system," I invite you to do so. I think it could make an interesting discussion. But this discussion isn't about changing the system, it's about choices people make within the system.

As explained by me up here, the difference in total cost to the customer between tipping on the tax and on the pre-tax is around 1.5% assuming a 20% tip and a 10% tax rate. If the tax and tip rate are both 20%, the total difference to the customer is only 3%. This is, I think, an entirely inconsequential difference to the customer. To the worker, on the other hand, the difference in the size of the tip is equal to the tax rate. If the tax rate is 10%, the difference in the amount of the tip varies by 10% depending on whether you tip on the pre-tax or total amount. A 10% difference in income, I think we will all agree, is not inconsequential to the worker. If increasing my tab by 1.3% increases my server's income by 8.625% (NY sales tax), I am happy to do it. In reality, people do this anyway most of the time by rounding up when it comes time to put down cash or write out the credit card receipt. It doesn't take too much rounding up to reach 1.3%.

Yes, that probably is a recommendation for people who know what they're doing (i.e., professionals). When I read your first post and you said you were looking at the budget and saw that only two bartenders were scheduled, I also thought you were hiring. Somehow my eye skipped over your later explanation that they are going to be inexperienced volunteers. I, too, would probably recommend something like eight. My experience in working with volunteer organizations is that at least two of them won't be reliable anyway. One thing that should help is for you to divide the tasks down into components and perhaps rotating those assignments to keep it more interesting for the volunteers. For example, serving the drinks is the easy part. Who is keeping the bar and equipment clean, who is making sure the bar is stocked (fetching new bottles and kegs when needed, opening bottles, tapping kegs, refilling the margarita machine, etc.). You could split the task so that you have essentially two bartenders and one barback per station.

Interesting. I'm looking at Dave's Esquire Drinks and see 2 oz gin, 1/2 oz lemon juice and 1 tsp maraschino. The whole Aviation question is an interesting one for me. I recently had a fun conversation about it with Marco Dionysos, who was in town from SF for a few days. If you look at the older recipes, there doesn't seem to be a "balanced" recipe for a gin/lemon juice/maraschino cocktail (by balanced, I mean with approximately equal parts of sweet and sour). In the Savoy Cocktail Book, for example, there is the Aviation with 2 oz dry gin (2/3) 1 oz lemon juice (1/3) and 2 dashes maraschino and there is the Allen with 2 oz Plymouth gin (2/3) 1 oz maraschino (1/3) and 1 dash lemon juice. I can't find anything with, say, 2 ounces of gin and a half ounce each of lemon juice and maraschino. To my taste, the Savoy Aviation is fundamentally a sour drink whereas the Savoy Allen is fundamentally a sweet drink.

This is interesting. What was the deal there? Mike used to manage the NY place and moved to Philly when they opened up the branch down there? If so, his moving back to the City to manage the NYC original should be good news indeed. I've always heard that the Philadelphia Lombardi's was excellent, and the NYC one has been mediocre for quite a few years now. It's really too bad, though, that the NYC Lombardi's gain comes due to the loss of the Philadelphia outpost. Do you think they have any plans to try to open in another location down there?

A few thoughts here: First, it's never susprising to me when someone writes a pizza article that mentions the mediocre places in town and fails to mention the standouts. Even the great Peter Reinhardt in his wonderful book American Pie discusses perennial disappointment Lombardi's and yet leaves out NYC's best coal oven place, Patsy's East Harlem. Second, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct "Philly Style" pizza as such. I'd be interested to hear what makes "Philly Style" distinctly different from other styles. For that matter, I'm not sure there is a "New Haven Style" as distinctly different from "NYC Style" either -- the classic places over there just do the same style at a higher level. These are all, more or less, variations on what Reinhardt calls "Neo-Neapolitan pizza." This style originated in NYC, is most commonly associated with NYC and is most commonly called "NY Style" -- but I'm not sure that means NYC owns the style or that other cities don't also have great traditional pizzeria making pizza in more or less the same style. It's just a name, and "Neo-Neapolitan" is probably a better name. This is to say that I think there are greater differences among individual old school pizzerie within these cities than there are among the aggegrate "city styles" between these cities. I can be convinced otherwise, of course. I'd be interested to hear what someone who wanted to open a traditional "Philly Style" pizzeria in NYC would do to distinctly differentiate that place from the traditional "NYC Style" places in NYC such that people would be able to walk in and say, "oh yea... this is completely different from the local style" (this is what I assume, for example, people natives do when they visit the Grimaldi's in Phoenix, AZ).

We are reliably informed that Chef Shea Gallante of Cru is named one of the Best New Chefs of 2005 in food & Wine Magazine's upcoming issue.

FWIW, you are correct. Lo Zingarelli even uses "grigliata mista" as the example when giving the definition: grigliato, the masculine "o ending" noun, means a grilled panel or hatch that allows air to pass through.

Julia, I'm not aware of any place that offers these statistics for free. If you have around 650 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you'll be wanting the Adam's Beverage Group's Liquor Handbook. I suppose some libraries might have a copy.

This is a big public statement in the Chicago Tribune, one of the leading newspapers in the country. Ahh..this one bothers me. Did Trotter really stop serving foie gras around March 2002? I dug around a bit and I dont see any significant detail in the animal activists against foie gras timeline during that time. Maybe, I am guessing, a couple of weeks/months before July 2003, he stopped serving foie gras. Given Trotter's apparent disdain for the anti foie gras activists, there is no reason to suspect that his decision to stop serving foie gras at his restaurant was influenced by the anti foie gras activists -- nor to suspect that they would have been aware of this decision on his part. With all due respect, given a choice between trusting the time period a reporter for the Chicago Tribune says Trotter told him or your supposition -- I'll stick with the Trib. Not that I think it's important anyway. It really doesn't matter whether it was three years, two years or two months ago. The important part is that he says he doesn't serve it now and, to the extent that one cares about the hypocrisy issue, that a reasonable time period for this prohibition would seem to include the date of the event at which we know foie gras was served in his restaurant. I suppose it is even more important that Trotter says it's been around three years than whether it has actually been around three years. But, again, I don't think it's important.

Hmmm. Depends on who's doing the talking...and the computation. On a $20 tip, a difference of $2 is 10%, not 1.5%. I don't know about you, but I would miss 10% of my income were it to suddenly disappear. The difference between $130 and $132 is 1.2%. That's the difference to the person leaving the tip. An inconsequential difference. The difference between $20 and $22 is 10%. That's the difference to the person receiving the tip. A not inconsequential difference. I hadn't thought of the difference to the person receiving the tip, but you make a good point that it can make a difference to the person on that side of the transaction. All the more reason, in my opinion, to calculate on the total.

Perhaps it might be helpful to sum up the pertinent elements as we understand them: What did Trotter say? To my mind, there are several important things: This is a big public statement in the Chicago Tribune, one of the leading newspapers in the country. He's solidly coming out against all foie gras here. There is no way Trotter isn't acutely aware of the fact that different farmers treat their animals differently. He certainly could have said that he refused to buy foie gras from farmers who didn't conform to his expectations as to ethical and humane treatment. Presumably this is what he does when he purchases beef, lamb, chicken, fish, etc. So, by denouncing foie gras in its entirety, he is saying that animal cruelty is an inherrent part of the foie gras production process. If this is not what he is saying, then coming out against foie gras across the board is like saying, "I went to several Tyson locations and several Purdue locations, and I think raising chickens this way is cruel -- so I am no longer going to serve chicken at my restaurants" and ignoring the fact that other people are raising chickens in a different way. What did Tramonto say? He further explains his point, saying: This makes good sense to me and makes the same point I made above. Certain farms do treat animals better than others. So, unless Trotter is saying that foie gras production is inherrently cruel, in making his blanket statement about foie gras he is ignoring this fact. Trotter responds: First off, there is no way the argument can be made that these statements aren't ill-advised and unprofessional. You simply don't make ad hominem remarks to a reporter from the Chicago Tribune to the effect that a colleague is "not the smartest guy on the block," "can't be that dumb," has made an "idiot comment" and has a liver that is "certainly fat enough." This is a basic issue of professionalism and, for example, it's something we would probably delete if it were posted in the eG Forums. In a debate you attack your opponent's arguments, not your opponent. The only argument he makes in this response is that animals that are raised to be slaughtered don't need to be raised in a way that makes them suffer. This is significant for a few reasons. First, it reinforces my earlier observation that he is arguing that foie gras production is inherrently cruel. He could easily (and professionally) have answered Tramonto by saying that some foie gras producers do treat their animals acceptably, or at least that it was hypothetically possible. Second, it raises a question as to the meaning of "suffering." Some people, such as those affiliated with PETA, would argue that the mere act of domesticating animals and raising them to be slaughtered necessarily causes suffering. Other people, needless to say, have different ideas. From what I have been able to understand about gavage, there is nothing about it that I would consider inherrently cruel. Everything else comes down to regular animal management practices, and as far as I have been able to determine, foie gras producers are among the cream of the crop when it comes to non-gavage treatment of their animals. Ladies and gentlemen of good will may be permitted to differ. Some of Trotter's statements make me wonder what foie gras producers he visited and whether he has been listening to too much anti-foie gras propaganda. Hudson Valley Foie Gras produces something like 80% of the American product, and this is absolutely not descriptive of their methods, nor of the methods of the other major American foie gras producers. As to whether it constitutes rank hypocricy to have made this statement so soon after having apparently allowed foie gras to be served at a special event in his restaurant is harder to say. I don't accept for a minute the argument that Trotter was somehow forced by economic, professional or personal considerations into allowing this product into his restaurant. If anything, Trotter's prickley personality demonstrates that he is not one to be forced into anything. If Blumenthal et al. had proposed to serve an animal that was an endangered species, for example, I am quite sure Trotter would have vetoed that without a second thought. On the other hand, despite his blanket pronouncements, he also had the following to say about anti foie gras legislation: This suggests to me that, despite his public and at times ill-considered statements, he views the foie gras issue at the moment more as a personal one for him and doesn't seek to tell others what to do or what to serve. This is more congruent with his decision to allow Blumenthal et al. to serve foie gras in his restaurant -- it's his personal choice not to cook it in his kitchen, but he's not to the point of proclaiming that others shouldn't cook it (or produce it). On the other hand, if I thought foie gras was so inherrently cruel that I banned it from my kitchen, I don't think I'd allow anyone else to serve it in my restaurant either.

The whole "tip on the pre-tax amount or tip on the total" question is not even worth bothering with. Consider this: Let's say that your pre-tax bill is $100. Let's further say that the tax rate is 10% for a total bill of $110. If you tip only on the pre-tax amount, you will leave $130. If you tip on the total, you will leave $132. This is a difference of two dollars, or 1.5%. I'm not going to get worked up about a 1.5% difference. It's easier to tip on the total, and it ensures that you don't forget to include the tax in the total amount you leave. Simply multiply the total by 1.2 and that is what you owe. For casual restaurants I use the calculator on my Palm Tungsten, and for high end places I like to take a credit card sized calculator in my pocket. Otherwise, I just add 2 dollars for every 10 dollars in the total.

What about Sea Breeze on 9th Avenue around 40th? I've always been very impressed.