slkinsey

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.

I don't think this is a realistic situation you have outlined here. No one "can only afford Tyson chicken." There is such a thing as doing without, and I would suggest that it is entirely possible for someone to obtain an equally inexpensive source of protein without eating factory chicken. In no way is cheap chicken a necessity of life. One could easily get protein mostly from things like tofu and rice & beans and, if doing without chicken is unthinkable, eat only the occasional piece of chicken (or beef, etc.) from small family farms. Some people don't want to give up chicken for tofu and rice & beans, etc. -- but some people don't want to give up foie gras. Although chicken is much more commonly consumed, it is fundamentally no more a necessity than foie gras. Both depend on want rather than need. The only difference is that one is more expensive than the other. I don't think anyone here is arguing for cruelty to animals. At the same time, no one has sufficiently demonstrated that gavage is inherrently cruel to animals -- or any more inherrently cruel than all the other things that go along with raising animals for slaughter even in the best of circumstances. I still cannot understand why an animal who was presumably being subjected to cruel treatment would run to the person in order to be subjected to that treatment again, as ducks run to the feeder to be gorged. It has often been pointed out that stressing the ducks only leads to a lower quality liver and thus less money for the farmer, so the feeders have a real economic incentive to treat the ducks well -- and money speaks loudest of all. Regardless, I think we should be able to agree that in all other aspects of life except for gavage, the quality of life is substantially better for ducks raised for foie gras compared to factory chickens. What is clear is that terms like "force feeding," an insufficent understanding of the physiology* and psychology of ducks, anthropomorphism and sensationalism have led people to make certain conclusions that are not fully informed -- good faith and intentions notwithstanding. Whether or not there is a law against the production of foie gras in California has no bearing on whether or not gavage is inherrently cruel to animals (it should be noted that the California law doesn't come into effect until 2012, was likely accepted as a political move by the foie gras producers to reduce immediate pressure, will likely be strongly challenged before it does go into effect). * For example, most people think that gavage deposits the food into the duck's stomach. This is incorrect. The food is deposited into the craw, from which it is transmitted to the stomach for digestion at the duck's own pace.

The last statement is true only if all the fois(sic) in the world is the same and nothing but the same ones that resided inside the geese and ducks your German Stepgrandpa raised. Could you clarify this, FaustianBargain? I'm not sure it makes logical sense. As I read it, Mabelline is saying that she believes the way her German Stepgrandpa raised geese and ducks for foie gras was humane, and that this means it is possible to raise geese and ducks for foie gras humanely. This makes logical sense to me. If we accept that her German Stepgrandpa could do it humanely, then it is possible for anyone to do it humanely. I'm not quite sure what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying that Mabelline's statement to the effect that it is possible to raise geese and ducks for foie gras humanely is true only with respect to the geese and ducks already raised by her German Stepgrandpa? This doesn't make logical sense to me, but perhaps I am not interpreting your statement correctly.

Some questions re "aging" The ash/oil misxure is rubbed on the outside and the inside of the tagine? Also, is this somthing that should be stopped once the tagine starts to be used for cooking? Or can you cure it, maybe cook a few dishes and then do a few oil/ash treatments? It's ready for cooking more or less right after the initial cure, yes?

I could be convinced by some of the anti-foie gras arguments, or at least convinved of the non hypocricical motivations of those in the anti camp. But here's the thing: if we're going to talk of "humane treatment" and "quality of life," there is simply no way a duck raised for foie gras doesn't have a much better life than the average factory chicken. I've said before that if I had to choose between living as a duck faised for foie gras or living as a Tyson chicken, I'd choose to be the duck in a heartbeat. Does this mean that some of the foie gras criticisms don't have merit? Of course not. But it does say to me that many of the anri foie crusaders have their priorities mixed up. You want to crusade to improve the lives of animals raised for slaughter and consumption? good for you. Where do you think you'll affect the greater number of animal lives -- working against foie gras production or working for better conditions in chicken factory farms? I'd say it's around one million to one in favor of the latter, if not more. Trotter wants to ban foie gras and refuses to use it in his restaurants? Fine. Well, he ought stop serving chicken and beef and lamb in his restaurants as well, unless he can demonstrate that the animals slaughtered for his restaurants have a substantially better quality of life than ducks raised for foie gras. And hey, while we're at it, let's talk about "line caught" fish, which are dragged through the water by a hook piercing the jaw and then "drowned" to death in the air. If Trotter thinks all the animals he served at his restaurants live "suffering free" lives, by his definition, he's sadly mistaken. Does he suppose every piece of beef he serves came from a cow raised as the beloved pet of an Amish family until it was lulled to sleep with a reading of Charlotte's Web and then gently, lovingly killed as it dreamt of sweet clover? Now, of course, there always comes the question of what is acceptable treatment for any animal raised for slaughter. For this, it helps if one has an understanding of the animal's physiology and, to the extent possible, psychology. The esophagus of a duck, for example, is lined with something very similar to the material our fingernails are made of. And, of course, ducks and geese have a natural gorging instinct. One reads of ducks gathering around the feeder and standing in line to be gorged. Is this unnatural? Yea, to a certain extent. So is feeding grain to cows. Domesticating an animal and raising it for slaughter is inherrently "unnatural." But it's not clear to me that doing any of these "unnatural" things necessarily makes the animal "suffer." Could the gorging method be done in a way that was inhumane? Certainly. But that doesn't mean that the gorging method is inherrently inhumane. So I say it is a flawed premise to declare foie gras production inhumane based simply on the gorging method. This would be inhumane for humans, and probably for most mammals, but not for ducks and geese. So, I invite everyone who renounces foie gras for reasons of conscience to also renounce any animal that is not raised free foraging on a family farm, including any animals "finished" on grain.