slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I infer from his reviews and preferences that, like me, he places a primary importance on the crust. Delorenzo's seems to be a steel deck oven place, and there's just only so special that crust can get. This, for me (and perhaps also for Richman) is a reason to leave Di Fara off such a list as well -- the crust simply isn't special.
-
I think it does get a notice: "During my tour of Philadelphia, I journeyed to as distant a land as Trenton, New Jersey. (Again, no luck.)" He just didn't find it exceptional.
-
i feel like i smell more quinine in cynar than i taste but who knows...
I'm pretty sure that quinine is odorless.
-
I got this book totally thinking it was about something else, and might have some pointers for my post-bar locomotion.
-
Here is a good starting point:
-
I once incinerated an entire cut baguette I was attempting to toast in the broiler. And so I pitched that out and put in another one. Incinerated that one as well. So I pitched that one out and put in another one. Yep, incinerated. This was, needless to say, most amusing to my friends who were there for dinner (who just so happened to be the Fat Guy family).
-
Years ago I read an article claiming that the idea hitting streaks, or slumps, were the result of a batter somehow going "hot" or "cold" was a myth. Essentially, a batter's performance is a collection of random events unpredictable in the short run but statistically consistent in the long run. If you hit .300, we know that over the course of a season, you'll get a base hit in three out of every ten at-bats. But because each at-bat is a random occurrence (more or less), sometimes you're going to go 18-for-25 over the course of a critical week in August, and sometimes you're going to go 3-for-25. Not because you were "on" in the first instance and "off" in the second, but because that's the way random events accumulate.
There are two statistical models that might appply here.
The first is regression to the mean. How this works is that you have a basic level of doing a certain task, this could be cooking a steak or making a base hit three times out of every ten. Some times you will do much better than your "mean" level. This might mean cooking a truly perfect steak, or it might mean going three for four against (hopefully) the Yankees. The opposite could happen as well, and you could have an unusually bad performance -- burning the steaks or going zero for four against (hopefully) the Red Sox. These unusually good or bad performances relative to a mean skill level (or score or whatever) have a certain statistical probability which can be characterised by the normal distribution. They have low probability of happening, but not zero probability of happening. The laws of probability say that your next performance after a statistically improbable performance is likely to be a more statistically probable performance, because it is always true that the most likely performance is the most statistically probable one. What this means is that you are likely to follow a particularly good performance with one that was not quite as good, and you are likely to follow a particularly poor performance with one that is better -- this is because you are likely to give a performance that is closer to your statistical mean performance.
The second contains most of the same principles. The normal distribution says that if you have a certain skill level (let's say Roger Maris' 27 home runs per year average) that there is a certain statistical probability, albeit very small, that you will have a season or a streak that exceeds that average performance by quite a lot (Maris' famous 61 HR season). You can actually do the statistical analysis to see how many seasons by how many players at various average levels would have to be played in order to produce one who had a statistically improbable 60+ home run season, which explains why it took so long to break Ruth's record. Of course, for the following seasons we normally see . . . regression to the mean. In culinary terms, this explains how someone whose steak-grilling skills are good enough to cook 4 out of 5 perfectly will sometimes cook 20 perfect steaks in a row, and sometimes 20 bad ones in a row.
-
I tend to agree with Steven on the low-moisture thing, depending on the amount of cheese used and the heat of the oven. Using a hot oven and a sparing hand with the cheese? Full moisture fresh mozzarella is best, IMO. But if you're putting on a full layer of cheese, fresh mozzarella is invariably rubbery. And if your oven temperature is too low, fresh mozzarella often becomes leathery. Or... you know... both.
-
I'd read that oak chips impart flavor much faster than a barrel, at least in winemaking. I wonder what the approximate equivalents would be...seems like your two years with chips would equate to quite a long time in barrels, assuming the same principles hold, probably longer than the original ever saw in wood. Not that thats a bad thing of course.
At some point it comes down to simple math on the internal-surface-area-to-volume ratio. A standard 60 gallon barrel is approximately 38 inches tall with a 27 inch base and top. That works out to an inner surface area of around 2,170 square inches (this is actually probably overstating it a bit). Do the math: This equals around 36 square inches of internal surface area per gallon, or around 0.28 square inches of internal surface area per ounce. Smalller barrels will, of course, have a larger amount of internal surface area per ounce due to geometry. But anyway, it seems unlikely to me that it would be more than one square inch per ounce. So, think about it: One wood chip soaking in booze may have a surface area of 4 square inches or more. That might be enough to "barrel age" as much as 8 or even 16 ounces of bitters.
-
I can't say that I rememember a substantial number or proportion of criticisms of Waters' ideas that were framed as an attack on her person in this thread. This would constitute an ad hominem argument.
What I do see is that a number of people have said that the way Waters expresses some of her ideas, and perhaps some of the ideas themselves, have made them not like Waters very much. I and others have also pointed out that this can have an impact on how welcoming people may be in receiving her ideas. These do not constitute ad hominem arguments.
Indeed, even saying something such as, "what a jerk Alice is for saying that people should buy fancy grapes instead of running shoes" is not an ad hominem argument.
-
Add a recession, et voila: backlash!
-
The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.
Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.
That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.
Argumentum ad hominem is when you "reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
I don't gather that people have been saying, for example, "organic school lunches for everyone is a crock because Alice Waters is a demagogue." At least in this thread, what I see when people have criticized some of her ideas is that they have criticized the substance of her arguments. If anything, some of this has gone in reverse, with some defending any criticism of any idea issuing from Waters' mouth, seemingly at least partially motivated by an unwavering admiration of Waters.
To the extent that some people (myself included) have pointed out that aspects of Waters' persona and delivery may have the effect of rendering people less receptive to her ideas... that's simply pointing out the truth of human nature, not making an argument for or against any of her ideas one way of the other. Her persona and delivery also make people less receptive to her ideas even when they are ideas with which I agree.
-
[wrt "chef"] I kinda think the problem is that people who have a deep respect for food and the craft of the chef, including Steven and Alice, feel some compunction when being addressed with a title that they don't feel they deserve. In fact, they take pains to correct the error.
Eh...? Not sure if this applies to Waters so much. I mean, if she didn't want herself listed on the CP web site as "Executive Chef" then I think she has the ability to get that taken down.
On the other hand, it seems difficult to characterize her relationship with that restaurant using any other readily understandable word. Muse? Guiding Light? Philosophical Leader? My understanding is that she doesn't manage that kitchen today, doesn't plan the menu and doesn't create the dishes. But certainly her influence on the cooking there goes deeper than Danny Meyer's influence on the dishes at his restaurants. So it's actually quite difficult to say what, exactly, her "title" should be with respect to her rols past and present at Chez Panisse. What does seem clear is that it's not "chef " in the same sense that we mean "chef" when we talk about Alain Ducasse, Tom Colicchio, and yes, even Tony Bourdain and even still the guy who runs the kitchen at the local Denny's.
-
And this is what I said:The same is true with AW. She is a chef, not a politician. She is trying to make the world a better place in ways that are relevant to her profession. She’s not perfect. She will have flaws. She will say stupid shit. But her flaws should not be the focus. Unfortunately, they are; they are because there are people who want them to be.
And you said it using precisely the kind of wording ("[her flaws are the focus] because there are people who want them to be") that casts those who find some aspects of Waters, her message and delivery annoying, condescending, etc. as "evil, bad people with a prejudiced agenda against Saint Alice" rather than as reasonable people who may reasonably take exception with aspects of her message and aspects of her delivery.
The topic of this thread is, "why is it that people seem to be not liking Alice Waters so much these days?" People have offered reasons for why this may be so. Others have attempted to deny the validity of these reasons or explain them away. But it seems impossible to have a discussion on a thread about "the backlash against Alice Waters" without focusing on her flaws.
-
The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.
Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.
-
Actually, most of these immediately preceding posts do point out that there is a backlash against AW, whether it is because of her philosophies, her methodology of trying to get those philosophies across to the public at large, or, heaven forbid, because someone, somewhere (not herself) calls her a chef.
I think that to the extent that there is backlash against Waters, it's pretty easy to figure out why:
1. She has a tendency to express her ideas in unfortunate ways that reasonable people may reasonably find condescending and not respectful of the choices that people make and the challenges people face, especially in the current economy. Since she has held herself up as a Living Embodiment of these principles, an exemplar whom everyone should emulate, she is doubly vulnurable to the same kind of backlash that has affected others who present themselves this way (Martha Stewart being the perfect and obvious example).
I do not think that there is any backlash against Waters due exclusively to people not agreeing with some of her ideas, although it is clear that not everyone agrees with all of her ideas or all of her priorities. I believe that, if she were to express herself in a different way, and if she were not holding herself up as someone whom everyone should strive to be like and whose priorities every right-thinking person should share, then I think that more people would be more open to her ideas. I also think that she would be less annoying to people who don't agree with all of her ideas, and there would consequently be less backlash. The fact is that I agree with many (probably most!) of Alice Waters ideas. And yet, I still find her preachy and annoying. And there are other people who have far more ideas with which I disagree, and yet I find these people infinitely less annoying than Waters.
2. Alice Waters's proponents and self-appointed defenders have lost part of the battle by continually insisting that her crap doesn't stink on every possible point of contention. Which is, well... annoying. If you guys had simply said: "Yea. I can see how Waters can seem preachy to some people. And maybe it wasn't such a great idea to suggest that we increase the school meal program by $18 to $40 billion dollars when our educational system is circling the drain. And maybe it's not such a great idea to say things that make you look like you're condescending to people whose family decisions include $100 Nike shoes and not $5 bunches of organic Bronx grapes. I get that. But she's got a lot of good ideas. And we do need to get better food into the schools. And we really should rethink our financial priorities as a culture, considering that we spend a lower percentage of income on food than any other first world nation. Her heart's in the right place. But, yea, I agree that she can be preachy and condescending sometimes" -- we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. Instead, it's been these ridiculous attempts to defend everything she has ever said at all costs. Well, that's going to be a losing battle. Because it seems clear that there is going to be a neverending stream of examples people can use where Waters has said things that a reasonable person might reasonably find offputting, and which might incline that person to not be so terribly fond of Alice. And some of you guys are going to have to work harder and harder and harder to defend against these things so that Alice can once again seem like someone who does no wrong. And that's really the crux of matter. Alice (along with you, her defenders) has held herself up as some kind of eco-cultural-foodie messiah who can do no wrong. This rubs people the wrong way sometimes. Basta.
-
More Chez Panisse chef data:
It appears that Paul Aratow was chef there either not all or for a very short time. Almost immediately, the chef was Victoria Kroyer. Kroyer was the chef until sometime in 1972. Then she left and the chef was Barbara Rosenblum. Then Kroyer came back, whereuppon a power struggle ensued between her and Rosenblum. Kroyer ultimately won and Rosenblum was sacked.
Tower got the job shortly thereafter, in 1973. Prior to Tower's arrival, while the philosophical guiding light was there in the form of Waters, the food is described as relatively undistinguished.
Jean-Pierre Moulle was the fill-in chef during the times that Tower was away (although Tower remained "officially" the chef), and appears to have been the chef in the period between Miller's departure and the hiring of Bertolli.
(edited to delete some text that didn't belong in there)
-
I've got to go, but, if this thread is still here later on, I will return. According to the McNamee book:
Page 43
"...As construction progressed the reality of the unforgiving hours of drudgery that are sine qua non of chef began to sink in. When he learned what his salary would be, his mind was made up. Cheffing at Chez Panisse was not going to be Paul Aratow's career."
I'm guessing that would be why he ran the BOH for such a short period of time before Tower was hired as the chef.
You also fail to mention that the very next sentence reads: "Alice, superb cook though she had become, could not imagine herself behind the stoves."
-
It appears, from skimming the book, that Jean-Pierre Moulle often served as the fill-in chef throughout the history of Chez Panisse. One of the things he says in the book about his on-again/off-again relationship with Waters is that "it helps that she's here not very often."
-
Interesting, from the International Culinary Center's website, a bio of Jacques Pepin:Chef Jacques's demonstrations are events unto themselves. With his combination of personal warmth, humor, and extraordinary experience and knowledge, Chef Jacques has been a powerful presenter and priceless resource at The FCI since 1988.
Now, I ask, do the students call Mr. Pepin chef? Is that because he's running a restaurant's kitchen? Or because of the respect he's earned?
Well, there are two things here.
First is the fact that Jacques Pepin has managed a professional kitchen. He was also director of research and new development for the Howard Johnson for ten years.
Second is that "chef" means "boss" and this is the way the students are taught to address their instructors. It would be like taking a class at a school on military tactics and being taught to address your instructor as "sir" despite the fact that he did not hold a military rank in the armed services. I would assume that, were you or I to teach a cooking class at the FCI, the students would address us as "chef" as well -- despite the fact that clearly neither one of us is a chef.
According to the book over the years Alice did her share of cooking, she took over every time her chefs were away, including Jeremiah, who, as you know, took extended trips to Europe to see Olney, to the Carribbean, and so on.Pitching in in the kitchen while the chef is out of town doesn't make you a chef yourself.
-
Could somebody please explain to me why Alice should not be called Chef, and what difference does it make? I did not go through the entire Thomas McNamee book, but every page I randomly opened had a reference to her cooking or standards she set for Chez Panisse.
For the same reason that you could read a book about Danny Meyer and see tons of references to the ways his ideas about food have informed his restaurants.
This fork of the discussion is beginning to become a little nonsensical, with Alice Waters' proponents reacting to everything other than unferrered admiration as an attack that must be defended against. The question remains: When was Waters running that kitchen?
Let's make a timeline of Chez Panisse chefs. It is actually quite difficult to figure out who the chefs at Chez Panisse have been. Even the Chez Panisse web site doesn't let you know that it is David Tanis. Here is what I have been able to find out so far:
Paul Aratow 1971 - 1972
Jeremiah Tower 1972 - 1978
Mark Miller 1978 - 1979
??? 1979 - 1982
Paul Bertolli 1982-1992
Jean-Pierre Moulle ??? - 2000
David Tanis/Christopher Lee 2000 - 2004
David Tanis 2004 - Current
Mitch, before you jump in here, I should point out that the gap between 1979 and 1982 doesn't necessarily mean that Alice was running the kitchen at that time. What it means right now is that I wasn't able to figure out who the chef was in a 10 minute search of the internet.
Whether or not the restaurant web site calls Alice the "executive chef" or not is really moot. She's the owner. And I don't think anyone is denying that she has been a guiding force behind that restaurant throughout its history. But that doesn't necessarily mean that she was ever running the kitchen or having a primary responsibilty for designing the menus, etc. Indeed, there seems to be someone right now who has that job, and it ain't Alice.
Again, the word "chef" at this point has become diluted to the point where people want to call me a "great chef" despite the fact that I am a home and semi-professional (as in, the occasional small-scale catering gig) cook and have never run a professional kitchen. This is similar to the way that people seem to want to (incorrectly) call anyone who plays an instrument "maestro." If we would like to use "chef" to mean "the person who runs or has run a professional kitchen where they had a primary responsibility of devising the menu and seeing that the kitchen executes that menu to spec" then it is not clear that Alice Waters has ever been a chef. If you want it to mean something else, then yea... she's probably a chef. So am I.
-
When did she run the kitchen at Chez Panisse? Even in the early days, Jeremiah Tower would certainly argue that he was running that kitchen.
Anyway... at least Bourdain and DiSpirto really were the people in charge of running a kitchen and devising all the recipes, etc. Not that I, personally, would call either one of them "chef" in any sense beyond the one in which one might still call Tom Landry "coach."
-
Alas, the answer turned out to be: there aren't any.
-
I think if you’re looking for something to not like about her it’s pretty easy to find. But so what? And, I'm sorry, but some of the comments here are clearly contrived. As I noted previously, I seriously doubt that AW is the anti-education, pro-organic carrot lover slkinsey has made her to sound like.
Another way of stating this would be to say that it's pretty easy for unlikable things about Alice Waters to find their way into one's consciousness.
I, by the way, never said Alice Waters was an "anti-education, pro-organic carrot lover." I simply pointed out how it is that someone could look at her calls for this country to invest billions of dollars in free organic meals for al students and say: "You know what? Let's use that money to get the kids to read first. And when we can do that, then let's talk about getting a free organic meal for every student in the public school system." I haven't been making Waters sound like anything on this subject, except for pointing out the reasonableness of the reaction I detailed above, and then responding to various arguments forwarded by yourself and others (but not Waters) as to why this is not a valid reaction and, in some cases, attempting justifications as to why giving out 100 million free organic meals every day would do more for educating our children than spending that money to hire more teachers.
I also resent the notion that somehow AW represents all of us. She is one voice among many. Maybe a little louder than most, but I've never considered her my leader on this subject or any other.To whatever extent you feel as though Waters has been granted notional leadership of "all of you" (whomever that group might represent) you have no one to blame or thank other than Waters herself, who has certainly appointed herself spokesperson and living embodiment of certain ideas and practices, and yourselves for serving as her apologists.
I'd say she's neither. She's a restaurateur, activist, philanthropist, etc., but not really a chef.
Well, I don't know why she's not a chef just the same as Bourdain is a chef?
She ran a restaurant at one time. Hence, the title chef.
The person who runs the restaurant is not the chef. That person is the restaurateur. A chef runs the restaurant's kitchen. Danny Meyer, for example, is a restaurateur because he runs a bunch of restaurants. He is not a chef, however, because he doesn't run any restaurant kitchens.
Frozen Pot Pies May Kill You, But It's Your Fault
in Ready to Eat
Posted
They should just make up the pies, freeze them and then irradiate them. Done deal.