slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Slkinsey wrote
If the NYC or NYS smoking bans ever make it to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be upheld as constitutional.
ANSWER
Maybe in the New York State Supreme Tyrant’s Court, but not in the United States Supreme Court. The SCOTUS would have to reverse countless decisions and what they have stated regarding due process of law with respect to rights associated with property ownership and government regulation.
Well... Obviously we don't agree on this. But, you know what? I'm sure we'll eventually have a chance to find out which one of us is right and which one is wrong, as I have little doubt that someone will try to challenge one of the smoking laws on the books around America in the highest court possible.
With that, I'd say that this part of the discussion is closed. If you have any thoughts, comments or feelings about food you would like to contribute to discussion on eGullet, please avail yourself of our many forums.
-
I think one thing that has thrown me off on choosing the best pan for a particular technique is that different people use different terms for the same thing, probably incorrectly. I think I'm now clear on what a skillet is, as opposed to a "sauté" pan. However, I've also seen references to "straight-sided sauté" and "slope-sided sauté" pans.
I hope to clarify all this and more in my "Understanding stovetop cookware" class in the eGCI.
-
Saturday was a Ronnybrook Farms chocolate milk for breakfast down at the Union Square Greenmarket where I bought many tasty things for the week.
Lunch: Cape Cod Salt and Vinegar potato chips and slices of Spanish chorizo.
Dinner: went to Pampa on Amsterdam at 97th with bergerka, Eric Malson and a friend I shall refer to as "the God of Thunder" for reasons that will remain obscure. Had a nice bottle of Malbec from Argentina... a few spinach empanadas and a few corn empanadas; frites with parsley and raw garlic; bergerka had a wonderful skirt steak, the GoT had a bacon-wrapped fillet (not my first choice of cuts, but he liked it) and Eric and I shared the "mixed grill for two" or, as I like to call it "the gizzard plate" -- this consisted of two skirt steaks, two cross-cut sections of rib, chorizo, blood sausage, kidneys, sweetbreads and intestines... VERY tasty, as I'm sure you can imagine, especially with chimichurri. Chased all of this down with crepes filled with dulce de leche and an apple pancake with vanilla ice cream.
The ferrets had some deep fried pork for breakfast and some deep fried chuck steak for dinner. They really liked the chuck steak because I fied it up while it was still frozen, so it was nice and crispy on the outside and pretty much raw inside.
-
Welcome to eGullet esvoboda.
As I am about to explain in my eGCI unit on cookware, you really can't toss food (i.e., sauté -- the French verb sauter meaning "to jump" as in "to jump around in the pan") effectively in a cast iron skillet. Cast iron skillets are not designed for it. The sides are too low (around 14% - 20% as tall as the diameter of the pan as opposed to 25% for a sauté pan) and the handle is both short and parallel to the cooking surface as opposed to long and angled upward like the handle of a sauté pan. Both the higher sides and the long angled handle of the sauté pan make it easier to sauté effectively -- not surprisingly, since it is, after all, called the sauté pan.
-
Am I the only one who has ever eaten a bagel from Lenny's? I really do think they're way better -- i.e., denser, chewier -- than H&H.
-
...NY water has high mineral content compared to most areas...
Actually, the exact opposite it correct. NYC has some of the softest water in the US.
-
Slkinsey
John, you seem to be widely missing the point. The NY ban -- or at least the NYC ban as I understand it -- is there to protect employees from dangers associates with the inhalation of second hand smoke at their place of employment. Public spaces where the ban is in effect are those which inherently have employees. For example, if there were to exist a private smoking club that had no employees (i.e., where the members performed all the maintenance and other duties normally done by employees) then that club would not be subject to the smoking ban.
ANSWER
I believe you have missed the point.”…entering a privately owned restaurant [even if it is to work there] which allows smoking, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest other peoples smoke and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of that smoke“.
OK, John... let's ask a simple question. I don't want a bunch of quotes and whatnot, just a yes or no answer.
Do you believe it is within the government's purview to enact legislation with the intention of protecting employees that regulates, say, the amount of volatile coal dust in the air inside coal mines or the safety of machinery in factories or the use of respirators at chemical plants? Understand, of course, that these places of employment are all located on privately owned property.
So... yes or no?
Because it sounds like what you are saying is: no. To rephrase your quote, you could just as easily be saying: "…entering a privately owned dioxin plant [even if it is to work there] which does not provide breathing apparatus and other safety equipment for employees, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest carcinogenic chemical vapors and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of those carcinogenic chemical vapors."
This is tantamount to saying that the government may not enact any legislation to protect employees from dangers at any workplace located on private property because that would be stepping on the property owner's right to do whatever he wants on his own property, and that all employees at these workplaces are "knowingly and willingly" subjecting themselves to the (preventable) dangers associated with those workplaces. This is ridiculous, because this line of reasoning removes any ability whatsoever for the government to protect employees in the workplace and we end up back at the standards of the industrial revolution. Regardless, it has long been established in this country -- and upheld by the Supreme Court -- that the government does, in fact, have the mandate to enact such legislation and so your entire point is moot. If the NYC or NYS smoking bans ever make it to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be upheld as constitutional.
There is no clear and imminent public danger to the “general public health” from those who smoke on privately owned property. The danger, if any, falls upon those who smoke and those who willingly enter upon privately owned property….those who exercise personal liberty and freedom of choice.I agree on this point when it comes to people who patronize establishments on private property. But, again... how does this address employees who work on these private properties? It doesn't. This is just like saying, "there is no clear and imminent public danger from carcinogenic chemical vapors that are present on privately owned property. The danger, if any, falls upon those who willingly enter upon privately owned property where carcinogenic chemical vapors are present without a breathing apparatus..." This is all fine and dandy when it comes to visitors to the chemical plant. I would agree that any non-employee who is told "there is a fog of carcinogenic chemical vapor inside this plant" and who decides to go in there without a breathing apparatus and other safety gear does so on his/her own dime. However, the standard is different for the people who work at the chemical plant. It is not enough to say, and the highest courts in this country agree, that the employees at the chemical plant voluntarily subject themselves to the carcinogenic chemical vapors at the dioxin plant without any safety measures at their own free will by exercising personal liberty and freedom of choice, and that they can always take their employment elsewhere if they are not happy with the levels of safety provided at the plant. This is, again, tantamount to saying that the government has no mandate to enact legislation to protect employees from workplace dangers when the workplace is located on private property.
Due process of law, when individual and fundamental rights are concerned, such as rights associated with property ownership, requires much more than a “reasonably perceived potential danger”, as I have already documented. Perhaps you missed what I posted concerning the Legal requirements to be met for government regulation to be within constitutional limits.Yea, I read what you said before. I just don't think it applies in this case. The dangers associated with the inhalation of "first hand" tobacco smoke have been well documented. I don't think anyone can argue that smoking is not bad for one's health. For various reasons, several of which I have documented elsewhere in this thread, it is unlikely that absolute proof from long term environmental studies of humans as to the health effects of passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke will ever be forthcoming. This has nothing to do with whether or not the inhalation of second-hand smoke is bad for one's health, but rather has to do with the unmanageably large number of oustide variables and other changes inhernet in such a study that make is extremely difficult bordering on impossible to arrive at a conclusive and statistically strong result. That said, there is copious evidence from long-term human studies as to the health effects of first-hand smoking and there are plenty of animal studies -- both laboratory and environmental -- demonstrating the negative health impact which results from the passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke. This strikes me as plenty of evidence to satisfy the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Whether or not it is enough evidence for you... who cares? The City and State of New York don't have to satisfy you.
One other thing... you know that this is a discussion board devoted to food and subjects related to food, right? One would hope that you're not just here to flog your pet topic.
-
I'd say that there are some places in Montreal that are excellent and are better than many places in NYC. That said, they are not as good IMO as the best places in NYC -- my favorite (and a smaller, denser bagel) being Lenny's on 98th and Broadway.
-
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
Hmmm... before responding to someone who likely won't listen to reason, I should have taken a look around the Internet to see what else pops up about Mr. Kurowski and his one-man organization to see what this axe-grinder is all about.
Needless to say, he does not appear to be on these boards to discuss his love of food.
-
John, you seem to be widely missing the point. The NY ban -- or at least the NYC ban as I understand it -- is there to protect employees from dangers associates with the inhalation of second hand smoke at their place of employment. Public spaces where the ban is in effect are those which inherently have employees. For example, if there were to exist a private smoking club that had no employees (i.e., where the members performed all the maintenance and other duties normally done by employees) then that club would not be subject to the smoking ban.
As for your repeated statements as to the "rights associated with property ownership and individual liberty" -- it is quite clear that the government is free to pass laws regulating activities that take place on private property where the safety and wellbeing of employees working on said private property is concerned. If this were not the case, there could be no legislation regulating the workplace whatsoever.
Where you make your mistake is in assuming that the smoking bans are intended to protect the general public (patrons of establishments or visitors to private properties). This is not the case, and could not be the case because, as you suggest, patrons and visitors may exercise their freedom of choice and take their business or selves elsewhere. The standard for employees is different, however, and it is quite clear that the government may enact laws to protect employees in the workplace from a reasonably perceived potential danger.
-
Forgot to add that the ferrets had big chunks of pork loin deep fried as described for the beef above. Everyone seemed to like it, although they didn't attack it with quite the same intensity as they did the beef. Pork these days really isn't fatty enough, I suppose, and the texture is a good bit tighter than the chuck steak I gave them on Thursday -- which made it more difficult for them to rip off ferret-sized portions with their teeth. As always, Issachar was the first to tear into his, with Asher taking a bit longer and Zebulun taking a while to decide he liked it.
-
Friday was:
Lunch: All you can eat Indian at a little place in Midtown East. I had copious amounts of onion fritter, raita, some raita-like preparation that included peas, fluffy white rice, chicken tikka masala, lamb rogan josh, and some curried potato and cauliflower dish the name of which I have forgotten. I always regard "all you can eat" as a challenge, and I am fairly certain I ate enough to feed a small village in rural India for 2 weeks.
Dinner: (slkinsey, bergerka and Eric Malson) Started with martinis of Boodles gin and Vya extra dry vermouth at 8:1, gently stirred and garnished with a twist. Then it was carne enchilada tacos, carnitas tostadas, pollo con mole burrito and chorizo nachos washed down with Negra Modelo.
-
Slkinsey, most full-flavor cigarettes only contain aroung 1 mg of nicotine.
No... most full-flavor cigarettes are rated at around 1 mg of nicotine. That is a far cry from "contains" or "delivers to the average smoker." As Philip Morris says on their own web site
No two smokers smoke cigarettes exactly the same way. The tar and nicotine yield numbers that are reported for cigarette brands are not meant (and were never intended) to communicate the precise amount of tar or nicotine inhaled by any individual smoker from any particular cigarette. These numbers come from standardized testing methods, which compare different brands when smoked by a machine under identical laboratory conditions. As regulators have said since their introduction, these tests - including those developed in cooperation with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the International Organization of Standardization - show the relative differences in yields among brands, assuming that each brand is held and smoked the same way as it is in the machine.It is a known fact, and has been known for some time, that cigarette makers do things to their products like putting tiny pinholes around the filter in order to artificially lower the nicotine content as tested by the machine. The machine numbers are widely reported to be significantly lower than the actual delivery of nicotine to the smoker's system. Again, Philip Morris acknowledges this:
It is reported that smokers "compensate" for the reduced tar and nicotine yields of some brands by smoking them differently than they would higher yield brands. For example, they may take more or larger puffs, smoke more of the cigarette or block ventilation holes that contribute to the lower reported yields of some brands. Generally speaking, the more intensely a smoker smokes a cigarette, the more tar and nicotine he or she will inhale from that cigarette.And I believe that oral and digestive absorption of nicotine is less effective than lung absorption.I don't have any data on this, but I don't see how it could possibly be true. There is no way that a smoker absorbs any more than a small percentage of the nicotine contained in one cigarette's worth of tobacco. Digestion, on the other hand, would tend to introduce all the nicotine into the system. My own personal esperience of having smoked a cigarette a time or two and having tried smokeless tobacco a time or two is that oral delivery is several orders of magnitude more potent a delivery system than lung absorbtion. One cigarette never made me feel much of anything, whereas less than one cigarette's worth of smokeless tobacco (by volume) was enough to make me light-headed and queasy.
It would be one hell of a tobacco cocktail that would poision one already resistant to nicotine.I don't think one can "build up a resistance" to a lethal dose of a poison. Some people may be better able to tolerate a sub-lethal dose below a certain threshold, but it does not necessarily follow that the amount required for a lethal dose or serious sub-lethal dose would be less for one such person. The fact of the matter is that 50 mg of nicotine will kill just about anyone. Period. While it is probably unlikely that one cocktail will include 50 mg of nicotine (although, who knows? it is highly soluble in water and alcohol, so it would depend highly on the preparation) it is certainly within the realm of possibility that someone could consume a lethal dose by drinking 3 or 4 cocktails containing 12 - 16 mg of nicotine.
From Blondie's article:
Although the cocktails are somewhat akin to the nicotine patch and nicotine gum some use to quit smoking, those products contain a set amount of nicotine and carry warnings about how they should be used. With the drinks, the nicotine content could vary widely depending on how many tobacco leaves were in the marinade and how long they fermented."This is craziness," said Glenn Singer, a lung specialist at the Broward General Medical Center. "It's crazy to give people nicotine-laced cocktails so they don't have withdrawal."
According to Singer and other health experts, the side effects can include dizziness, nervousness, heart palpitations and nicotine poisoning.
Wald realized the potential potency of the drink as he experimented to find the right mix. One batch was so strong that Jeffrey Fuller, a Cathode regular who was helping taste-test the early versions, felt lightheaded and had to sit down.
I can tell you for sure... if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't want to assume the added liability of serving a nicotine-infused drink.
-
Request/challenge - One of you artistic types (ie, not me) do Andrew Marvell. Seems to fit.
The world in all doth but two bacons bear,—
The crisp, the limp; and these mixed everywhere.
-
CNBC just ran a piece on how NY bars are serving tobacco-infused liquor to help compensate for the smoking ban.
Interesting, but potentially dangerous. Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid that can cause respiratory failure and general paralysis in a dose of less than 50 mg. Smaller toxic doses can cause heart palpitations, lowered blood pressure, nausea, and dizziness.
The good news for smokers is that smoking one cigarette equals around 3 mg of nicotine, which merely increases the heart rate, constricts the blood vessels, acts on the central nervous system and makes you feel good. However, these bars had better be very careful about how they are infusing their tobacco, or they may give someone a lethal or serious sub-lethal dose of nicotine. I would not be surprised if it were actually against the law.
-
FG, I was interested to read in your article that you enjoy eating the chicken and beef meat left over after making your stocks -- especially since you favor such long simmering (a practice with which I concur). Don't you find that the meat has given up just about all of its flavor to the stock and is insipid and flavorless?
Also, I am curious as to your thoughts on using the carcasses of roasted poultry for stock making (i.e., using the bones from the Thanksgiving turkey to make turkey stock, etc.). I have found that I prefer the result from starting with raw bones -- even if I do end up roasting them to make a brown stock -- rather than already cooked bones.
Thinking of stocks... it might be fun to pick up a cotechino, zampone, tongue, capon, etc. and do an eGullet bollito misto in the fall.
-
Sam, are there foods that you totally avoid to protect your voice? Is dairy a no-no (based on the milkshake and cabrales consumption, perhaps not!)?
Not really, no. If there were certain foods that triggered a notable allergic reaction or gave me serious acid reflux, I'd probably avoid them. So far, so good.
In re to the dairy, I have never experienced the alleged congestive effects many people claim. Besides, it's not as though I was drinking a milkshake 10 minutes before I started singing. I don't tend to eat anything (except, as previously mentioned, perhaps a few nibbles of apple or pear) for an hour or two before singing. There are certain temporary physiological effects in the throat that result from eating that are not so great for singing.
-
Matthew: Eeew.
Maggie: I don't get cottage cheese either. Especially when subbed for ricotta. Yuck.
I think maggie was punning off smegma.
You would.
There was a local band in Boston during my formative years called "Smegma and the Nuns."
-
This morning: got out of bed late; staggered through the three Ses and took off without eating.
Lunch: chocolate milkshake, French fries and a bacon cheeseburger at Scotty's Diner in Midtown East. They make quite a good bacon cheeseburger, and now that they know me I always get it done just the way I like it and with extra bacon.
Dinner: had a late rehearsal and the GF had a performance, so I threw something together... salad of endive, julienne of Granny Smith apple (done on the mandoline), crumbled Cabrales cheese, evoo (Frantioa Barbera unfiltered Sicilian evoo -- 12 bucks for a liter, and really tasty), vermouth vinegar and Maldon sea salt; sourdough bread with a nice, ripe Reblochon; and an appley Reinhessen Kabinett Riesling. In honor of Craig's article on amari I am sipping a small glass of Fernet Branca as I type this.
The ferrets had some more of the ground chicken earlier in the day. At the moment they are noshing on bowls full of ~0.75" cubes of chuck steak briefly deep fried in hot oil to kill any bacteria on the surface while keeping the interior as raw as possible (most bacteria in large cuts of meat is on the surface). This is their first taste of beef. As usual, Issachar went right for it immediately, Asher took a few exploratory nibbles and declared it "good" while Zebulun is taking a more cautious approach.
-
But I thought it was "asparagus pee."
Yea, yea, yea... potato/potahto.
Yes, it is asparagus pee. Broccoli is, um, also green! And... um...
..also stinks, if you overcook it! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Heh! I'd be interested to see how many eGulleters can smell asparagus pee, just as a matter of curiosity. I've never been sure whether I can smell it or not. I have two friends who swear it is so strong it can make their eyes water, whereas I have only occasionally wondered, "is that it?"
-
Grrrr. I just knew someone would bring up mortadella!
It's better than baloney.
Isn't that the point?
Besides, you could replace "better than" with "so far superior that it's hard to believe it is even distantly related to" and get no argument from me.
-
I like head cheese.
Well, yea! Who doesn't?
-
But I thought it was "asparagus pee."
Yea, yea, yea... potato/potahto.
Yes, it is asparagus pee. Broccoli is, um, also green! And... um...
-
Ok, about this bruising business...I don't get it. What are we talking about? The actual chemical composition of the the stuff in your cocktail that isn't ethanol is changed? Or you just don't like the taste/dilution/viscosity of a drink that's been shaken for a long time? I'm not sure I'm buying the bruising thing, but I could be convinced with some decent evidence. And by evidence I don't mean that gin and other clear booze goes cloudy when it gets shaken vigorously and that means it's "bruised", ok?
No... I think you hit the nail on the head with your last one there. Nothing changes chemically, but it does go all cloudy and becomes overly diluted, which IMO negatively impacts the distinctness of the flavors and the viscosity in certain kinds of drinks. That's all there is to "bruising" IMO. Also IMO, it really doesn't make much sense unless one is serving a relatively pure cocktail -- a Martini, a Manhattan or something like that. In my "Samhattan" vanilla perfect-style Manhattan, I like to shake it quite a bit because I am mixing two bourbons plus two vermouths plus bitters. OTOH, If I am just having gin and vermouth, I want to flavors to be more pure. To my palate, shaking a Martini to the point where it gets cloudy obscures the purity of the flavors somewhat. That said, it could be that I am letting my eyes do the tasting and responding to the cloudyness. Regardless, I don't like it in a pure, simple cocktail.
New York bagels? Feh
in New York: Cooking & Baking
Posted
Yes, they make them on site AFAIK.