slkinsey

Sigh... if only my SO wasn't also a musician (grumble).

Are you actively pursuing such insurance? There are several avenues you can investigate. Believe me, I've looked. As has just about every other classical singer in NYC I know. The affordable options are just not out there. It's worth your life to get any medical insurance of any kind whatsoever when you are self employed in the arts and living in New York State. Most of us make enough on gigs and day jobs to put us over the hump for things like the "Healthy New York" program (not that $150/month is all that great anyway), but we have to spend a very high percentage of our income on continuing training. There is something special about New York State that makes the medical insurance rates so high. Singers I know in other states pay nowhere near the rates that are offered in NY. Every professional organization I know that offers reasonably-priced medical insurance to self employed people (like the National Association for the Self-Employed) offers such insurance in 49 states... all but New York. You are correct, of course, in saying that medical care won't be denied in the US. But, that doesn't mean that uninsureds don't still get stuck with huge medical bills. I have a friend who stepped in a pothole in the crosswalk and broke her hip in a one-in-a-million kind of fall. She had to have surgery and is carrying a lot of debt because of it. Of course, she is suing the crap out of the City for not fixing the (very deep and almost impossible to see from the direction she was traveling) hole... but still, until Bloomberg cuts her a check, she's staring down a mountain of medical debt.

Right... basically what I get out of this is that people over there use the generic term "vodka" (or whatever) to stand for any strong distilled spirit. Needless to say, this usage is not the one we are employing in this discussion. So, this is my question: We have two distilled spirits made from grape skins. One is a grappa (or marc, etc. depending on country of origin) and the other is a vodka. What makes them different? My understanding is that the one called vodka has 1. undergone further refinement and processing specifically to remove flavor and aroma, and 2. has also not been treated in any way that might contribute flavor or aroma (ageing in wood, etc.). The point of this is that there must be something which, in our understanding, makes vodka different from rum, whisky, grappa, eau de vie, etc. -- and we can definitively say that is is not the raw ingredients, so it must be something else. Hmmmm... might it be the marked lack of color, flavor and aroma?

From the site: I am trying to understand why this is "aged vodka" and not straight rye whiskey.

FG, what I'm saying is that employers and employees should at least have the option of purchasing high deductible major medical insurance... a kind of insurance that has all but vanished. For example, $50/month with a $5k deductible. Basically the employee would pay all his routine medical expenses (doctor visits, etc.) out of his own pocket and the insurance company would only pay out if the employee had major medical expenses (surgery, cancer, etc.). In any given year, most people would have zero insurance claims! The insurance company would pay out nothing for these people, and that's where they would make their money. So, let's say that someone on my plan had a bad year and racked up $1000 in medical expenses. His medical expenses would be 1600 bucks. The insurance company would make 1000 bucks in pure profit. The way things are set up now, if the same guy was on one of those $250/month plans, his medical expenses for the year would be 3000 bucks, and the insurance company makes 2000 bucks in profit. But, of course, most healthy people only rack up 100-200 bucks a year in medical expenses. And this is where those "$250/month pays for everything" plans fail to be real insurance in my book. From the insurance company's standpoint, if you get two guys on the $50/month plan, you're making just as much money. And I have to believe that there are segments where they could do a lot of business with a plan like this. But maybe I'm wrong, because they sure aren't doing it. Personally, I think it should be federally mandated that any company in the medical insurance business must offer low monthly payment, high dedictible major medical insurance. Then we'd see the number of uninsureds in this country dramatically reduced. You're not insuring yourself with today's plans, you're prepaying for medical care just like you prepay for minutes on your cellphone. Can you imagine auto insurance that cost $250/month and paid the mechanic every time you got your oil changed? Can you imagine homeowners insurance that cost $250/month and paid everytime you repainted the living room? Why should we pay for medical care like this? If high dedictible major medical insurance were available at, let's say, $50/month, it would be quite easy for restaurants to pay half and emmployees to pay half without burning a hole in anyone's pocket. And, given the disturbingly large number of Americans with no medical insurance at all who wold avail themselves of such coverage, I cannot but imagine but that the insurance companies would coutinue to make plenty of money.

After combing the internet for definitions of vodka and articles detailing the defining characteristics of vodka, it is almost impossible to find anything that does not include the words "unaged" and "colorless" and "odorless" alongside "tasteless/flavorless" or "virtually tasteless/flavorless" or "with no defining or discernable characteristic taste/flavor" or other words to that effect. Representative examples would be something like this or this. I also found it quite interesting that virtually every vodka site I encountered (like this one) say that one should taste vodka out of the freezer. Is vodka in fact completely flavorless? Of course not -- that is impossible. Even pure H2O produces taste sensations. But it seems utterly futile to argue that vodka is a particularly flavorful beverage when it is readily apparent that it is not -- nor does it show a particularly wide range of flavors. This is especially true when comparing it to most every other liquor available -- all readily provable with a gas chromatograph, I suppose, and I wonder if anyone has done this. There's a reason there are a zillion kinds of flavored vodkas out there. It is because vodka has no real discernable characteristic flavor to interfere with the added flavoring. There is also a reason one does not see a zillion kinds of flavored rum, tequilla, bourbon, scotch, etc. It's because they have too much flavor.

Having been all over Europe and many other areas of the world (although not particularly much in Asia, I must admit) I feel I can definitively say that this is hogwash. I would say that most of Europe doesn't tend to drink much vodka... I never saw anyone doing it except young people, and they weren't drinking it straight. Mick... don't go making straw arguments and putting words in someone's mouth. No one has suggested this, so using it to support your position is meaningless. That said, I would agree that drinking bourbon with coke or gin with tonic would be the best way to test it if that is the only way the liquor will be consumed. I can only assume your example is in some way intended to counter my comments as to the relevance of tasting vodka at room temperature. If you plan on drinking a lot of room-temperature vodka, then test away by all means. This is the only case where room temperature tasting has any relevance. Just don't tell me that any of your room temperature judgments are valid at freezer temperatures or meaningful to someone who takes their vodka at that temperature. Also... you never answered my question as to why you wouldn't want to heat the vodka up to 100 F to experience and evaluate the different flavor, aroma and mouthfeel effects at that temperature? If you feel that room temperature evaluations are meaningful to someone who drinks vodka at freezer temperature, please be so kind as to explain why 100 F tastings would not be equally relevant. This assertion has got to sound completely ridiculous to anyone who has tasted the two classes of vodka. You may be saying that premium vodkas have ten times the quality or complexity of flavor that rotgut vodkas have... but to suggest that the flavor is stronger is simply ludicrous. Are you kidding? I mean, really, are you kidding?! Are you trying to tell me that premium vodkas have the same range of flavor and other characteristics as between Patron Silver tequila and Herradura Anejo, between Bacardi Silver rum and Ron Zacapa, between Maker's Mark bourbon and Bookers, between Beefeater gin and Hendricks, between an unaged grappa di prosecco and a grappa di barbera aged in wood, etc.? That's just crazy talk. I bet you can't name any two premium vodkas that exhibit the flavor and character differences as the examples I have made.

The health insurance thing is especially troublesome. For a variety of reasons, New York health insurance is often triple of what it is in other states. I personally do not have a single colleague (self-employed musicians) who can afford health insurance. I know there is no way I have an extra $250 burning a hole in my pocket every month (not to mention that HIP completely sucks, if the experiences of my friends are any indication). As a result, I have been without medical insurance for over 10 years. One of the big problems is that it isn't really insurance, the way I understand it. Purchasing insurance should be to protect yourself against something really bad happening. Let's say $50 monthly payments and a $5,000 deductible. This way, you would pay all your regular medical expenses out of your pocket, but would be protected from the big bills you would rack up in the event that you came down with cancer or broke your hip. AFAIK, this was the way insurance used to work. Nowadays, they have this $250/month insurance and people actually think they're getting a deal because it "pays for everything." But, of course, one does not usually get 250 bucks worth of medical care every month and so the insurance companies make out like the bandits they are. Now, AFAIK, this is the only kind of medical insurance one can buy... and don't even get me started on buying medical insurance that you don't get through your employer or professional organization. Sorry... I know it's a little OT, but the medical insurance situation is getting totally out of hand. And that has got to be a problem for restaurant workers and owners alike. I'm sure many restaurants would kick in to help insure their workers if it was a reasonably priced, high-dedictible major medical plan.

Famiglia? No doubt pronounced fah-MIH-glee-uh? Feh! Next time you're going to be in the City, drop a line back here and we'll send you someplace New Yorkers can be proud of.

pogophiles, as someone who grew up reading his mother's fairly complete archive of Pogo books, I have to ask you... haven't you ever wanted to try chicken foot perloo?

Um... that sounds awesome! You must do it and report back the results!

Hmmm... I've been to a lot of places in the world, and the only places that seemed to take vodka really seriously as anything other than mixing alcohol (other than rare afficianados, of course) were the Slavic states. So maybe we should rethink "everywhere else in the world that is not the case." As I mentioned before, what is the point of tasting a drink at a temperature at which is will not be consumed? Who cares what the aromatics and viscosity are at room temperature? Are you trying to tell me that a vodka that has delicate floral aroma and good viscosity is somehow "better" than one that has a less pleasant aroma and mouthfeel at room temperature when there is no basis for making this comparison at freezer temperature? That, in my mind, would be like a critic going to Peter Luger and insisting on trying a room temperature steak because certain flavors and aromas are less apparent at warmer temperatures. As I pointed out, flavors, aromas, mouthfeel and other sensory perceptions are greatly affected by temperature. This is a fact. So, in my book, it is silly to make judgments about a product by tasting it at a temperature in which it will never be consumed. Besides... why not heat it up to 100 degrees F and try it like that? I guarantee that there will be flavors, aromas and mouthfeel effects that will become apparent at 100F as opposed to 70F. I'd be interested to hear your explanation for why this wouldn't be an equally valid way to taste vodka. There is a reason wine reviewers don't bother tasting champagnes flat at room temperature... it's because it doesn't matter. It is quite apparent that there are taste differences between vodkas, however microscopic they may be. In my experience they all have to do with mouthfeel and finish at freezer temperatures (which, per the above, are the only temperatures that matter). That said, it is also quite clear that the goal of vodka distilling is to make the drink as colorless, tasteless and odorless as possible and that the characteristic differences that remain are due to inescapable impurities that remain due to the materials used and the way the vodka is distilled. However, I think we can all agree that premium vodkas have, on the whole, less taste, less odor and less color that the "lower" vodkas -- and furthermore that it is precisely the difference in the presence of the aforementioned three characteristics (as well as finish characteristics influenced by the presence of high alcohols) that determines the difference between these two classes of vodka. I agree with the corpulent one that it is somewhat silly for vodka distillers to try as hard as they can to remove every last bit of color, flavor and odor from their product and then try to distinguish themselves based on the ministule amount of each that remains. But, of course, what are they to do? They have to do something to gain market share and move their products off the shelves. Regardless, I think we can all agree that there is far less difference between brands of premium vodka than there is between premium brands of any other kind of liquor. So it seems silly to me to spend $35 on a bottle of Belvedere when I can spend $19 on a bottle of Brilliant. This is not like choosing a $45 bottle of Lagavullin over a $30 bottle of Glenlivet where your 15 bucks buys an obvious tangible difference. Similarly, it seems especially silly to buy anything beyond the cheapest premium brand of vodka for mixing -- I always get whatever is on sale.

In William Grimes's June 20, 2003 "Diner's Journal," he writes: In addition, my understanding is that when beef from Argentina has been allowed into the country, only the boneless cuts have been permitted. I think you're right about the boneless cuts. As for the rest of it, that is probably true for the time being due to hoof and mouth in Argentina. I do know that they were allowing it into the US in the late 90s, and hopefully will again when hoof and mouth is under control in Argentina.

Indeed. I would be shocked if a "vodka connoisseur" were able to distinguish in a blindfolded test between premium brands out of the freezer or in a martini.

Steve and Lesley, thanks. Very interesting.

Exactly! In fact, AFAIK the definition of vodka is that it is supposed to be colorless, tasteless and odorless. Understanding this, I can see how tasting at room temperature might possibly help one identify flaws in the vodka (i.e, tastes and odors).

AFAIK, Argentine beef has been allowed in the US since summer 1997. As with any import, this can change short or long term as the result of politics, cattle diseases, etc. Pampa on Amsterdam and 98th serves Argentine beef.

What is the point of tasting the product at a temperature at which it will never be consumed? Any taste judgments you make will only be valid for that temperature. A lot of flavors and aromas change drastically with temperature, not to mention other important variables such as mouthfeel. To my mind, tasting room temperature vodka would be like tasting uncarbonated, room temperature colas because the carbonation and cold temperature are "masking the flavors." Well, anyone who has ever done so can tell you that they all taste cloyingly sweet at room temperature, because sensations of sweetness are influenced by temperature. If you compare impressions of different colas in this form you may decide that you prefer a certain one because it is less cloying than the others, and that same cola might seem lacking in sweetness when consumed cold with carbonation. Similarly, a vodka that is "sweet" at room temperature may turn out dry as a bone coming out of the freezer. So judging a cold temperature vodka at room temperature might be worthwhile for the professional tasters controlling the production process, but not very enlightening to someone trying to make comparisons and judgments that will have value in the real world. This is one big problem I had with the comparitive gin tastings that the NY Times food writers recently conducted. It is not coincidental, I think, that their judgments, comments and preferences were almost entirely contrary to mine as well as those of most every other gin drinker I know.

In re to the amateur issue, something else just occurred to me... What kind of program are we talking about, how might amateurs potentially be included, and what are the real professional value of these programs? It seems that there are short-term "intensive" programs. I have a hard time understanding how such a program would be valuable to a prospective professional cook other than imparting basic cooking skills to someone who knows practically nothing about cooking. The "diploma" from one such program, I would imagine is basically worthless as a professional credential. Programs of this kind might be especially susceptible to "lowering the bar" effects from a dependence on income from substantial numbers of amateurs, turning them in effect into "professional cooking camp." I would imagine that most amateur cooks with an interest in professional training attend such schools. Then there are long-term (2+ years) diploma programs. I can't imagine that anyone but the most hardcore amateur enthusiast would commit the time and resources to such a program in its entirety. And, of course, more power to any such amateur who does and makes the grade. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not these schools might admit amateurs on a per-class basis. Does this happen? If I were pursuing a degree at a place like this, I'd be pretty pissed off if they let non-degree students into my "advanced pastry making" course. So... is it really the case that places like the CIA really get many amateurs in their full curriculum or mingle amateurs with their full curriculum students on a per-class basis?

How about butter poached as discussed in this thread recently? Specifically, some variation on the Keller recipe I linked?

Hmm. It all depends on the professional experience and the school. (snipped) Thanks for the reply. I was just thinking of something I think Bourdain said in Kitchen Confidential to the effect that he thought it was better to get some kid from Equador who would make the dish exactly the way he taught it to him instead of someone from Italy (or cooking school, or whatever) with ideas who would try to do things his own way. Maybe it's not a fair question, as I would think that anyone with only two years of experience would be doing only what he/she was told to do.

Oh? Well, you may be right. To be honest, I am only going on impressions I have gleaned from discussions here and elsewhere. Certainly you would know better than I. What would you say is more valued in the professional world: two years of cooking school or two years of professional experience with no cooking school? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious. Beans, what can I say? In my opinion, and the opinions of most people, the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary is the reference standard for the English language. I make proper usage of English words (English being probably the most precise language on a word-for-word basis) something of a hobby, and I have observed that "patronizing" in particular is misused on a regular basis. It is not the case that condescension is inherrent in any situation in which one person interacts with another from a position of greater knowledge or authority, or where attitudes as to the relationship are formed based on that disparity. Regardless, I am going on what I have seen in the public record, and I can't say that I agree with your characterization. Understanding that a student sucks at piping is not patronizing, neither is drawing on one's teaching experience and offering fundamentally different criticism/instruction (including withholding certain criticism) to students with different goals and levels of expertise. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to say that I think you're wrong. We'll just leave it there.

I have never seen any of the flavored versions avaliable at retail here in NYC. In fact, I was only turned on to it by a guy at Columbus Circle Liquors who offered me a taste from their freezer. The vodka itself is almost comically underpriced. Something like $19 a bottle compared to $25 or so for many other brands that I don't think are as good. The flavored ones do sound interesting, though, don't they? OTOH, I wonder how hard it would be to make this sort of thing for myself. I'm not sure how I'd do almond, but tarragon sounds easy. I made some lemon verbena vodka last summer that was really interesting. And, for some reason, I have been thinking lately of what fresh bay leaf infused vodka would taste like...

I would say that your understanding is a misapprehension, if this is indeed what you have gleaned from the foregoing. I think people are saying a combination of two things with respect to amateurs: 1. the vast majority of people who are interested in learning about cooking do not have the endurance, dedication, motivation, commitment and willingness to go through a curriculum that would be useful to a prospective professional cook. The inevitable result of this is that any cooking school which depends on revenue from a significant percentage of amateurs would have to lower the level of the class if they wish to continue to attract and retain such amateurs. There are, of course, some small number of hardcore amateurs like Sandra, but no school is going to depend on revenue from such students because there aren't enough of them. 2. there is also some question as to whether many of the skills learned in a truly professional class are all that valuable to amateurs in the real world. For example, most of the equipment used in the professional kitchen is very different from anything that might be used in the home. Why learn to make 500 pounds of dough in a huge Hobart when you will be using a KitchenAid at home? Especially when there are things you might learn about making the 500 pounds that are not applicable to making two pounds at home? Similarly, as other people have pointed out, a big part of professional cooking is learning how to do a lot of food in a very short period of time. Is it more valuable for a home cook to learn how to bone out 50 chickens in an hour, or how to bone out one chicken really well in 10 minutes? To a certain extent, the whole amateur question seems somewhat secondary to the fact that cooking school educations do not seem to be particularly highly valued in the professional world, if what I have read from professionals in this and other forums is any indication. If anything, the programs need to be more rigorous, more geared towards the professional arena, and more focused on acquiring skills that will make their diploma valuable in the workplace. The schools need to do something that will make a prospective employer say, "so-and-so went to the Academy of Culinary Excellence... that means he/she can contribute something to my kitchen that I won't be able to get from someone else." Such a program might include things not strictly in the kitchen like teamwork, team building and leadership skills; understanding management; how to work with owners; how to calculate costs and price dishes; speaking Spanish; career skills for moving up the ladder; how to find a career in the business that works for you; etc. I can't imagine that any such work would be of interest to an amateur. This is the same reason why amateurs who go to "Pro Football Camp" aren't made to run until they vomit. A good cooking school, like a good music schoool, should also be one that helps make connections for the students and places them in top kitchens where they can continue to learn and develop their skills under people who are interested in developing their talent.

I took a wine class with Willie Gluckstern. Interesting fellow and very passionate about price/value ratio in his wine purchases. Thanks for the tip. I'll have to check out the wine shop next time I'm in New York! Nancy's is a cool place. Their whole philosophy is to sell undervalued wines that go great with food. This is one of the reasons riesling is so great. It is probably the greatest white wine grape there is (especially for food), and yet most people in America don't really know about it so you can almost always get a truly great bottle for around $10/bottle. Barbera is another great wine that Willie/Nancy's turned me on to.