slkinsey

Thanks, everyone. No one has mentioned my main qualification, which is that I am a self-important, over-educated arrogant ass who talks too much. I hope to fit right in. After all, that's why I moved to NYC!

What would be the point of that? Oh, I know: "let's allow smoking in all the poor areas of Manhattan and not in the rich, tourist and business areas." Horrible idea.

Um... well, it's been about 20 years. And at that time, I was filling the thing with whatever I could get my hands on. Personally, I wouldn't want to ruin any decent liquor by turning it into bong water. Although maybe bong technology has progressed greatly since the mid 80s.

Foie gras is available at Citarella. Expend to pay $50-$80 for one lobe, depending on size and grade. I would imagine there is no reason not to go with grade B (usually used in terrines, mousses, etc.) for French kisses.

Depends on how long you stir. I tend to stir approximately 30-40 seconds for one to two martinis. I get the proper dilution--for me--*and* a very chilled martini. Given your preference for a fairly wet martini, as mentioned here, this may be a technique that works well for your particualr style. Any more dilution, and your martinis might start to taste watered.

Vya Vermouth, both red and white. Hands down. Nothing else even comes close. The only vermouth I like to have just on the rocks with a twist. This may be a little difficult to get, so for "easy availability" you're down to the mid-level vermouths. Noilly Prat for white, Cinzano Rosso for red. These are available everywhere. Since the mid-range vermouths only cost around 8 bucks a bottle, and Vya is only about twice that... why get anything cheaper? It's already cheap. Because most bars/restaurants use 95% of their vermouth in vodka "martinis" that include a miniscule amount of vermouth only as a nod to tradition. Since no one can detect the presence of vermouth -- never mind tell the difference betwen good and bad vermouth -- in a 50:1 vodka martini, why bother using the good stuff?

No. The only intoxicant in these beverages is alcohol. Anything else is a figment of your imagination... although sometimes a nice figment. I have always understood that it was a bad idea to keep gin in the freezer, because a proper martini depends somewhat on the dilution provided by the melting of the ice -- and I do tend to find that the gin is "thicker" when it has had some ice melted into it, even when compared to frozen gin. Frozen gin would minimize this effect, as it would not melt much of the ice.

Interesting. I grew up in Boston and live in NYC -- both cities known for having great tap water. Now my parents live in Houston, and my girlfriend's family is in Phoenix so I spend a fair amount ot fime in both places. I would describe the tap water in those two cities as "potable, but I would very much prefer to drink something else." Whenever I am in Houston it is a constant struggle to hydrate myself enough for singing, because the water tastes so unpleasant I have to force myself to drink enough. Only ice makes this possible.

I do think you have a very good point that we should be looking at other issues with air quality and health, and hopefully we are.

I see your point. However, we do need some idea of the air/environmental quality of various environs. There's no accurate and/or comprehensive data. I don't think it would be all that complicated. Hell, we're already engaged in heavy-duty deficit spending. There is some work being done on this of which I am aware, however there is significant (and IMO insurmountable) difficulty in getting statistically significant results in long term human environmental studies. The rates of the various pollutants change, people move, other lifestyle considerations (like smoking) complicate things and there is a real trouble in finding a control group unless you are prepared to put some kids into plastic bubbles for the rest of their lives. That said, I do think there is some understanding and evidence that having certain things in the air is bad for one's health and some regulation has been put into effect. This is why, for example, people aren't allowed to spraycoat cars in the open air any more. However, as Bux points out, none of this really has to do with the utility or advisability of legislation to limit exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace.

True, Sam. The biggest problem with this whole issue is that we don't have adequate empirical evidence concerning *how* bad second-hand smoke is. And further, how bad second-hand smoke is compared to other air contaminates or, for that matter, any other contaminates that the average person is exposed to. Common sense tells us one thing, but common sense isn't the same as empirical evidence. I have no doubt that second-hand smoke isn't good for one's health. But as far as *how bad,* the issue is contested. I think it is worthy of note that it is primarily contested by the same people who until recently contested the evidence that firsthand smoke is bad for one's health (some continue to contest this, I believe). Again, I think you can look at animal studys like the cat study I have repeatedly mentioned, and see that there is strong empirical evidence that second hand smoke is pretty bad for you... as in, worse than a lot of other things that are already regulated. And that's just cancer. Needless to say, we're not just talking about cancer here. We're also talking about asthma and other non-fatal lung-related conditions; we're talking about allergies; and we're talking about the likelihood that people working in those conditions will also become smokers (etc.). As for comparing second hand smoke to other things, this seems relatively easy to me. I am fairly certain that the increased health risks for someone who smokes, say, a pack a day are well-documented. It would be a small matter to place a sensor in a smoky bar for one shift, measure the smoke that would normally be inhaled by a bartender in that bar and use that data to make a comparison to the data we have from smokers who inhale a similar amount of smoke "first hand." My strong suspicion is that a worker in a smoky bar breathes in significantly more than 20 cigarettes worth of second hand smoke in one shift. But it is fatuous to suggest that the presence of other things in the air that are just as bad or worse than concentrated secondhand smoke argues against regulations to limit exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace. Rather, it is an argument for cleaning those other things out of the air. At least most of the other bad things in the air do things like providing our homes with electricity and our automobiles with fuel, not putting nicotine into some people's blood.

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how someone of reasonable intelligence could fail to understand that breathing in a shitload of smoke on a daily basis is bad for your health. Point taken, but if you have a chance, watch the show. People like to claim the evidence is all in. As P&T amply demonstrate, it ain't. I'd suggest you go back and read through this thread, as this ground has been covered extensively. It is true that a certain kind of evidence -- speficically long-term epidemiological human studies -- is lacking or otherwise statistically inconclusive. And there are reasons other than "secondhand smoke isn't bad for you" why this is likely to always be the case -- mostly having to do with the difficulty in conducting this kind of study. That said, there is a preponderance of evidence that cigarette smoke is bad for one's health, and there is strong animal evidence to suggest that second hand tobacco smoke is bad for one's health. Frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Does anyone really believe that second hand tobacco smoke isn't bad for you? That's like saying "it should be up to the construction companies to decide if they want to use asbestos. It's up to the employees if they want to work for there, and the purchasers if they want to live there." Or maybe, "the coal company shouldn't be forced to clean up the coal dust. If the workers aren't comfortable with the level of safety at the mine, they can always seek employment elsewhere." This is one of the things our government hopefully does, folks... it protects workers in the workplace.

Or, to rephrase it another way . . . I fail to understand how someone of reasonable intelligence could fail to understand that breathing in a shitload of big-city air on a daily basis is bad for your heath. Good point, but there is not way we are getting the same degree of "unhealthy stuff" breathing NYC air as we would be getting spending 40+ hours a week in a smoke-filled NYC bar. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that regular NYC air isn't as bad for you as regular NYC air plus concentrated smoke.

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how someone of reasonable intelligence could fail to understand that breathing in a shitload of smoke on a daily basis is bad for your health.

Am I the only one who finds it extremely interesting the way certain things -- say, larb burgers -- are discussed on eGullet and then coincidentally appear in the NY Times food section a few weeks later?

I has always understood that the flip coffee makers were a Southern Italian thing, no? I used to have a Bialetti Brikka which I thought was pretty good. Some kind of special technology to get crema and a more espress-like cup of moka coffee. I ended up giving it to a friend once I got my Rancilio machine. When I'm in Italy, I tend to take all my coffee in bars.

I note the conspicuous absence of a category for dissolved minerals, which is one of the most potent influences on taste.

Best: NYC water, hands down... especially once I've passed it through my fancy water filter. But it's damn good right out of the tap. Boston is a close second. Worst: West Texas. Nothing else I've had comes even close. Lots of gypsum and sulphur! Mmmmmmm!

i think elyse is bringing some of her famous pecan pie. although, with 70+ people, it seems we might need some people to double up on some items. I am bringing several. How many should that be? Bourbon pie absolutely welcome, Sam! Mine is quite different from a regular pecan pie. It's not really a pie anyway, it's a tart. Plus it has a small layer of chocolate and includes bourbon. So I would guess that we won't be reproducing one another's efforts in anything other than the use of pecans. Besides, what could be better than a pecan pie tasting menu?

Is anyone doing a pecan pie? If not, I have a derby-style bourbon pecan pie (a tart, really) recipe that will wake the dead. And barbeque absolutely requires pecan pie. Also, I wonder if we could get curdnerd to sell us a little of his product in the form of creme fraiche...?

Without labeling? How can this be possible? Someone with a nut allergy could unwittingly use such an oil, go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die.

Of course not. But you have to know something about it to know something about it. What in Lagasse's experience would lend itself to high-quality Chinese cookery?

Hobbes, I don't think you offended anyone. I think what some are saying is that you have brought up many interesting issues with your comments that are tangentially related to the topic of this thread and which might deserve their own thread wherein they might be more fully discussed.

Yea... This thread is for bashing the Cheesecake Factory and metadiscussion about whether some people are telling other people about what or whether they should post.

[sUPERIOR TONE OF VOICE]I'm sorry, but your entire line of reasoning is simply beneath me.[/sUPERIOR TONE OF VOICE]