slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
"Gorging" is something waterfowl do seasonally in the wild. What the farmer is doing is controlling that normal process, and perhaps taking it a bit further. I say perhaps and I will admit that in the wild, the ducks gorge for survival.
While this is true, I don't think that it is defence of there growers position. The gorging that the geese/ducks under go is far above the levels that the wild birds would do. They have to fly after all and force fed geese are incredibly over-weight. That is taking the natural process much further then "a bit". Many commentators on food of the region state that the meat from the force fed birds is to fatty to roast etc, so this is why confit of these birds is so common. So by trying to sell a half truth, I thing that the growers have put themselves into a weak position.
This takes me back to my earlier point that there are plenty of things we do with respect to food animals that are not exactly natural. In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing "natural" about raising animals in captivity and then slaughtering and eating them.
The tendency to gorge is, I think we all agree, natural for waterfowl. We take that natural tendency and push it to the limit for our purposes. We do a similar thing when we feed grain to cows. And how about what we do when we make capons? These exploitations of natural tendencies beyond what "nature" intended are not in and of themselves cruel or morally wrong. Thinking of my own field... there is nothing remotely "natural" about a man singing a full-voice high C that can fill a 4,000 seat hall. But certain people have a natural tendency to carry the voice up, and we exploit that natural tendency to an unnatural degree.
-
Yea, I've been to central market but I was hoping for a butcher rather than a meat counter in an upscale gourmet supermarket. I think (hope) a butcher could probably give me better quality for a cheaper price, too.
-
Sigh... I have got to get back there asap. It's been far too long.
-
I'll be in Houston for holidays at the end of the month, and as usual I'll be doing most of the cooking. In the past I have done a standing rib roast on Christmas Eve, and I'll probably continue that tradition -- but I'd like to be able to get a really nice piece of meat and support a local full-service butcher if possible.
Any recommendations? I'm in the Rice U area (Southside Place), so nearby is always good.
-
I don't think it is reasonable to compare political parties to a fast food franchise in terms of branding. There is no "Democratic Party Logo" that appears in all political ads and on all Democrat politicians' clothing. It's just not the same thing.
-
And thats Hannukah Harry, you tartan-wearing freak.
Hey, pal... at least we get scotch in our stockings!
If the iRoast is an improvement on the Precision model, I'd say you should get it. I've been very happy with my Precision and am definitely planning to get the iRoast when it comes out. In fact, if you want to try the Precision, I'll be out of town 12/20 - 12/28.
-
Sooooooomeone wants Judas Maccabeus to come down the chimney with an iRoast this Hanukkah.
-
I'd say Bayless must have had a clear understanding of the "nature" of BK. There's no way he could have believed that endorsing one of BK's products would in turn cause them to conform to his ideals.
But at question should be, first, the nature of the sandwich, since that's what he's truly endorsing, not BK as a whole. It's certainly reasonable to condemn his actions because they help an otherwise immoral company, but I imagine he's compartmentalizing, saying that this sandwich is a step in the right direction and that he's not endorsing all their food, only the sandwich and this movement within BK.
Surely you can't be suggesting that an endorsement of a BK product constitutes anything less than an endorsement of the company? I can't imagine that someone with Bayless' media experience would possibly suppose that it would be construed otherwise.
-
sustainable food choices (no)
responsible agricultural growing techniques (no)
the impact of food choices on the environment (no)
the advantages of locally grown and seasonally fresh foods (no)
It says including these. It's starts out with:
concepts and benefits of good, safe, and wholesome foodsIt seems that it promotes these three, at least in the mind of Bayless, according to his statements.
Doesn't it seem to be stretching the importance of those three incredibly vague concepts to hinge Bayless' whole argument on them and somehow make this "right" by the Chefs Collaborative? Especially when it is so clear that the more specific elements of their Mission Statement are not being met (not to mention fully 50% of their Stated Principles)?
"Good" is, of course, entirely subjective.
"Safe" is equally nebulous, although I would hardly call a sauce that includes smoke flavoring, which contains known carcinogens, entirely "safe."
"Wholesome" is, again, hardly a specific requirement -- and I have a hard time believing that Bayless would have said a BK chicken sandwich "promoted health or well-being of mind or spirit" before they gave him a big sack of money.
The fact is, of course, that if Bayless thought this was a viable argument he would have trundled it out a long time ago instead of "step in the right direction."
-
To challenge his integrity one must assume that he knowingly violated these principles.
If I am a nuclear physicist and I say that the most elementary particles in the universe are atoms, but then I find out, hey, there are smaller, more baisc particles, am I a liar, a hypocrite, a dope, or just wrong? The first and second and possibly the third require intimate knowledge of the individual unless there's substantial evidence about the person's knowledge and intentions.
I find it highly suspect that Bayless, the guiding light of the Chefs Collaborative and the primary author of their Statement of Principles, was not fully aware of which principles he was violating. Further, we're not talking science here, we're talking philosophical outlook. But, if you want to make a scientific comparison, if a famous scientist makes a certain assertion (say, that the earth is flat) which he later discovers, realizes or is convinced is no longer the case, he generally comes out and says: "Hey guys... remember all that flat earth stuff I was saying before? Total hogwash. Forget I said anything. In fact, let me lay some cool papers on you I wrote showing why I think it's spherical. You'll really dig it, and I want everyone to know it's spherical." The scientist is only a liar and a hypocrite if he takes money from the Spherical Earth Foundation to endorse their position when he actually still thinks it's flat.
This seems like reasonable positions to me:He made a mistake. Bayless' alignment with the principles as enumerated in Chef's Collaborative are incompatible with promoting a Burger King product even under the best intentions.
But that statement, though making a judgment about his actions, makes no judgment about his character or intentions.
Yes, much of this I would agree with. I can't say that I support the characterization of him as nothing more than a money-grubbing sellout -- it's not fair to what he has done and will likely continue to do. That said, this would seem to be an absolutely incredible change of heart, and one that entirely contravenes many, if not most of his previously promoted philosophies. The fact that it involved a buttload of money, the fact that he was entirely uninvolved in the development of the sandwich or the sourcing of the ingredients, the ham-handed and slightly disingenuous way he handled the "contribution" of his fee to the Frontera Foundation and the feelings of incredulous disillusionment from those who had eagerly bought into his former (and now incompatible) philosophies combined to produce these fairly predictable responses. I think that Bayless' (perhaps former) followers have every right to feel angered and betrayed by his betrayal of the very principles he influenced them to believe in.
However, as I said, people sometimes change their minds -- even evangelistic public figures like Bayless. When this happens, it is incumbent upon that public person to revise his earlier positions in public. Usually this is not an issue because the freshly-enlightened evangelist is champing at the bit to pass on his new message to the masses. The fact is, however, that this hasn't happened. Bayless has not come out to say that he no longer believes in the principles of the Chefs Collaborative and has found a better way... nor has he revised any of his previous positions... nor has he made any public statement of substance about the whole thing. This has had the effect of making him look like a hypocrite (which conclusion seems inescapable at this point) who did it for the money or maybe for the fame. The fact may very well be that his core beliefs haven't changed a bit. People betray their principles for money and fame all the time, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they threw away those principles for good. But, as someone who held himself up to the masses and popularized certain principles, there is time to be spent in the stocks when those same principles are betrayed.
Sieve's criticism is correct in that even if you assume the worst only on this one incident, RB could still be a much better man than any of us. He may regularly volunteer in charitable organizations, give a huge percentage of his income to charities, save babies from fires on a daily basis, and even think bacon is god's gift to the stomach, but from this thread it would appear all of that would be nullified if he decided to "sell-out" on an advertising campaign.I think that would be a misapprehension if there are those who get that impression from this thread. Most of the people who have participated here have remarked that Bayless is a talented chef who has done much to further valuable core philosophies and who will likely continue to do so, despite the fact that he has likely forever traded away some of his credibility as an evangelist. But, the fact remains that the evidence we have before us does point to Bayless in this matter being a hypocrite and a sellout who traded in, or at least temporarily rented his principles for money and fame. Bayless is nothing if not media-savvy, and he is certainly aware of the things that are being been said about him. I have a hard time believing that we wouldn't already know about it had he, in fact, had a genuine change of heart that lead to his acceptance of BK's endorsement offer. No doubt, should he come forward and popularize such a philosophy in the future, you will see many people whose opinions of him are changed. I will be one of those people.
-
I, for one, find it objectionable that we should be excoriated for judging Bayless using the same principles he used to separate the good from the bad for so long.
i'll tell you what. let rick shit on his values. then you can shit on him for shitting on his values. then i'll shit on you for shitting on rick's values. then you can shit on me for shitting on you for shitting on rick for shitting on his values. who wants to be on top of the pile? dude, aside from that giant eyeball, which totally freaks me out, i 'll listen to you and take you at your word. what i won't do is denounce you because i don't get where you're coming from.
I'm sorry, but I am barely to discern what you are getting at here. I'm not saying this as a snide remark, honestly. Perhaps you could clarify.
You won't denounce me because you don't know where I'm coming from? Does this need a comma, as in: "what i won't do is denounce you, because i don't get where you're coming from" (i.e., you won't denounce me, and the reason you won't denounce me is that you don't know where I'm coming from" or are you saying that you won't denounce me simply because you don't know where I am coming from? Either way, I fail to see how this applies to Bayless? We know exactly where he's coming from, because he has written, spoken and publicized exactly that. That's one difference between me and Bayless. Another difference is that Bayless is a public figure in this context and I am not.
-
Finally, goddamn it, douchebag is one word.
-
I think the argument can be made that the life of a duck or goose raised for foie is substantially better than the life of the average chicken raised for human consmuption. I know a number of people who have toured Hudson Valley or other such farms, and they unequivocally report that the ducks run over to the feeder and practically stand in line to be "force fed."
-
You know, several people have been taking the position that we have "no right to judge Bayless" on this matter. And I have to say that I simply don't understand that. If, say, I took $250k to endorse Burger King I'd say people here who hadn't been in that position have little right to judge me.
Bayless is a different kind of case. He put himself in this position, up on a pedestal, which is something I haven't done. As a public person on a pedestal of his own making, he opens himself up to public accountability and also to public criticism. I have in the past described Bayless as an "evangelist" for his philosophies, and I think the allusion is an apt one. To use your example of infidelity: this is something that most people have been involved in to one degree or another over the course of a lifetime of relationships. I certainly would not seek to condemn someone based on an infidelity. However, if a moral evangelist who preaches to the public against infidelity is involved in an infidelity himself, that is a different story. He who proclaims a higher standard is in turn accountable to that higher standard. This man would be fair game for public censure over his infidelities. Bayless is one such person, and if he is being judged, he is weighed on scales of his own making.
As I said earlier, if he didn't want to be the figurehead of a reformation he shouldn't have nailed those theses to the door. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to form the Chefs Collaborative or use his popularity as a pulpit to preach his culinary gospel. He reaped the rewards of that advocacy, and now he is reaping a different kind of reward from the same flock he once sought to lead. I, for one, find it objectionable that we should be excoriated for judging Bayless using the same principles he used to separate the good from the bad for so long.
-
Here are the "advancements" as I see them:
* An in-house baked bun
* Real roasted peppers with decent flavor
* Much better fat/calories than most fast food products
* Better taste than many comparable items
We may or may not agree on whether or not they are "advancements," but that does not seem to me germane in this case. The question is whether these things promote:
- sustainable food choices (no)
- responsible agricultural growing techniques (no)
- the impact of food choices on the environment (no)
- the advantages of locally grown and seasonally fresh foods (no)
That's 0 for 4 on the Chefs Collaborative Mission Statement, and I don't see a lot of wiggle room for differences of interpretation here. In fact, one could make the case (and I have been) that Burger King's business and culinary practices are in direct opposition to these goals.
- sustainable food choices (no)
-
As for the Mission of Chefs Collaborative, I think you have done a little selective quoting. BK's business and culinary practices are clearly inimical to points four through eight in their Statement Of Principles, in my mind.
I don't know how selective it is. Missions are quite different from principles. Their mission statement says what they will do and how they will do it. The principles speak of the goals.
As I read it, the Statement of Principles is an integral part of their Mission Statement. The link to that page says "Mission & Principles" and I don't think they make any indication that the two are anything but inextricably linked. Indeed the "Charter Preamble" says:
We, the undersigned, acknowledging our leadership in the celebration of the pleasures of food, and recognizing the impact of food choices on our collective personal health, on the vitality of cultures and on the integrity of the global environment, affirm the following principles. (Emphasis mine.)If you read about their history, you will see that "a group of chefs -- including Rick Bayless, Nora Pouillon, Alice Waters, Jimmy Schmidt, Tim Keating, Robert Del Grande, Larry Forgione, John Ash, Paul Prudhomme, Madhur Jaffrey, Zarela Martinez, Nobu Matsuhisa, Michael Romano, and Roy Yamaguchi -- spent a full day developing the Collaborative's Statement of Principles. (Emphasis mine.)"
I would also suggest that Bayless' endorsement of Burger King does not seek to nor substantially "advance and promote among chefs and the general public concepts and benefits of good, safe, and wholesome foods, including sustainable food choices, responsible agricultural growing techniques, the impact of food choices on the environment, and the advantages of locally grown and seasonally fresh foods, and to provide educational and other programs fostering such concepts and benefits."
-
Getting way off topic here. Also, Tony, if Bayless won't blow you my girlfriend will.
And what are we, chopped liver?
Edited to add: Welcome to eGullet, pork. You are one of our favorite meats. I think I can speak for many of us when I say that we'd be delighted to welcome your girlfriend into the fold as well.
-
ExtraMSG, if it is primarily the tenor and language of AB's remark that offends, I would suggest that our estimable Site Manager Steve Klc's approach as detailed above is a more productive path than responding in kind.
As for the Mission of Chefs Collaborative, I think you have done a little selective quoting. BK's business and culinary practices are clearly inimical to points four through eight in their Statement Of Principles, in my mind.
-
The fact remains, however, that the business and culinary practices of Burger King are fundamentally at odds with most of his previously stated principles and goals. It's like PETA endorsing a furrier for developing a fur coat that uses 50% less fur because it's a "step in the right direction." The fact would remain that the furrier still kills animals and makes luxury clothing out of their pelts, and that this practice is inimical to the stated goals of PETA. This doesn't strike me as being too hard to understand.
Bayless has said that he supports X, Y and Z and thinks that A, B, and C are terrible things. Burger King does A, B and C as well as E, F and G which serve to diminish X, Y and Z. Bayless is now endorsing Burger King for doing a little less of A. There is no way Burger King's practices are going to lead down the path to X, Y and Z unless they fundamentally change those practices. I, and others, would suggest that taking their money and patting them on the back isn't really the way to achieve these goals. Again, if Bayless had worked with BK on sourcing the ingredients for and developing the recipe for this sandwich, most of us would feel differently.
You seem to be upset that everyone isn't giving Bayless "the benefit of doubt" and taking his explanations at face value. Well, we don't owe him that. The man is a public figure, a politician and an evangelist in addition to being a chef. He has been well aware of the impact his various proclamations have had, and it is right that he should he judged by them. If he didn't want to start a reformation, he shouldn't have nailed all those theses to the door.
Again, if Bayless' views have changed so radically, that's fine. People sometimes "see the light" and change their minds. But, as a public figure, a politician and an evangelist he is responsible for making a public revision of his previously stated goals and philosophies -- many of which are fundamentally at odds with the business and culinary practices of the company he now endorses. Part of that process must be, in my opinion, resigning from the Chef's Collaborative and stating his philocophical and political reasons for so doing -- i.e., explaining how his views have changed and why he no longer fully supports the positions held and promoted by that organization.
-
The only things one can use as a basis to "judge" Bayless' intentions and principles are his own statements, and it strikes me as perfectly legitimate to make such judgments.
If, in fact, Bayless has truly changed his mind about things and believes that the best course to achieve his goals is to go the BK route, then it is incumbent upon him to go back and revise his earlier positions. In so doing, he should resign from the Chef's Collaborative, whose stated goals are at direct odds with the business and culinary practices of Burger King.
-
For me the coffee experiences were aslways in Europe -- mostly Austria and Italy. I always thought I didn't like coffee until I spent a lot of time over there and figured out I just don't like American coffee.
-
I'll have to swing into one of these places when I'm down there in a few weeks.
FoodMan, I have to second your thoughts on Churrascos. I always thought it was a nice place and a good value. Great Tres Leches!
-
I wrote a similiar letter to Williams Sonoma informing them I am boycotting their company because they buckled under due to pressure of animal-rights groups.
Why get angry at the company if this is a real belief of theirs?
The assumption here, I think, is that this is not a real belief of W-S, but rather what they see as a pragmatic response to something that they fear might generate negative publicity for the company. This is substantially different from taking a moral stand on foue gras.
While we don't have any conclusive evidence as to the reasoning behind Williams-Sonoma's decision, I have to believe that they would have responded to our email inquiries to that effect had it been a moral issue for them. Therefore, I think we can reasonably assume that the company knuckled under to pressure from activist groups.
-
I'd also like to take a moment to say: kudos to the Post for crediting eGullet as a source and giving us the mentions.
FOIE GRAS TO BE ILLEGAL IN SONOMA?
in California: Dining
Posted
Well, yes. But there is a "natural" consequence to that surgery.
Right. I see your point here, but I hope we can agree that breaking an animals legs and helping an animal to gorge are quite different in terms of degree. But yes, the question is how far is too far. If the ducks had to be chased down and forcibly gorged, clearly against their will, I'd probably think it was going too far. However, quite the opposite seems to be the case.
That actually seems like a pretty good idea. Why do you think they can't do that?