slkinsey

Brilliantly put, Alcuin.

I think that when you are an evangelizing moralizer who makes statements such as, "some people want to buy Nike shoes -- two pairs, and other people want to eat Bronx grapes" then you open yourself up to be judged in everything you say by the same yardstick you are continually holding up. It's like Ghandi saying that the one thing he wanted to to before he died was "kick the ever-living crap out of a British soldier." Germane to the question? Sure. It just contradicts everything he had been telling people to do. This is the same reason why Rick Bayless deserved criticism for appearing in a Burger King commercial whereas Padma Lakshmi did not for appearing in a Hardee's commercial: because Bayless had loudly and consistently moralized against the sorts of things practiced by Burger King. I wouldn't necessarily say that Tony Bourdain is unpretentious, but I think this is probably not the word you meant to use. Something that is pretentious is "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature." I don't get that liking roasted bone marrow fits that definition. I do, however, think that Tony has perhaps a touch of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature about him from time to time. That said, as previously stated, he very effectively mitigates this sort of thing with deliberate and seemingly sincere self-deprecation. Meanwhile, what does pretension or, as I think you were trying to say, preciousness have to do with making statements that go against one's oft-repeated principles? I guess we just disagree as to whether making statements which suggest that she would advocate for free organic meals in the schools as an "incredibly urgent need" over addressing and funding the myriad disfunctions with which our public school system is faced might constitute a reasonable, rather than contrived and prejudiced reason to not like her as well as one might. To me, it's a bit like advocating beautiful foundation plantings in the slums.

doesn't sound very local to me either. Um... so what? Last I heard Bourdain wasn't presenting himself as a preaching, living embodiment of slow/local/seasonal/organic/small farm food for everyone. You're saying what, exactly? That Bourdain doesn't practice what Waters preaches? I don't see that he is obliged to do so. So what you're saying is that you've had enough to eat today? This seems like a jibe in the face of not having much real ground to stand on. I'm not sure what substantial point you have to make here. Florida, in effect, is saying that the Federal government should pour money into Waters' idea of giving free organic/local/whatever breakfast, snack and lunch to all 55 million children enrolled in American public schools in the face of the shocking holes in our educational system because, after all, if people in a certain state or community want the local public schools to be better, they can always vote to raise their own taxes. All I'm saying is that the same thing is true for the food program: states can raise taxes to improve their free meal offerings as well, if they want to. So that's a non-argument. The issue is that, if you are going to designate some billions of dollars to go into the school system, is that money better spent on free organic meals for every student, or shoring up the walls of our failing educational system? Hey, I'll be the first person to say the best thing would be to do both, but let's be realistic here. You want to say that our government should, in general, be providing more of a social safety net for its citizens and should be more actively spending to ensure that we reduce things like childhood malnutrition? I don't disagree with that one bit. Tell it to the voters who are dissatisfied with paying the lowest tax rates among first world nations. But it's absurd to suppose that Waters' proposed program would make any meaningful difference in malnutrition. You want to do something about malnutrition among the public school-attending population in the United States? Allow me to suggest that enacting programs that make sure families have enough to eat at home, that gives mothers and fathers paid paternal leave commensurate with the rest of the nations in the world, that gives poor and working families access to affordable healthcare, that offers family planning education and resources, etc. are the kinds of things that have a chance of meaningfully affecting this problem in a way that putting an organic apple into the hand of every public school student just doesn't. Even simpler than that... let me suggest that plowing that extra $10 billion into WIC would do far, far more towards solving the problem of malnourished schoolchildren than Waters' plan. Meanwhile, where is Alice Waters saying that a significant goal of this proposal is to meaningfully impact malnutrition in our public school student population?

I think it is a mistake to suppose that a significantly large proportion of our public school population is experiencing learning deficits due to malnutrition that can be meaningfully addressed from within the school system. Meanwhile, we have had a National School Lunch Program providing free and reduced-price meals to income-eligable students in need for longer than I've been alive. In fiscal 1997, this amounted to $8.7 billion and benefitted more than 30.5 million children each day (which is more than 50% of children enrolled in out public school system). The kids who don't qualify for this assistance shouldn't be suffering any effects of malnutrition, and whatever extent some of these kids enrolled in the program may be getting horrible nutrition in their homes when they are not at school is outside of the scope and financial reach of any such program. What Alice Waters is suggesting is (i) that we radically increase the budgeted dollars per student, and (ii) that we radically increase the students serviced by this system to include all 55 million children enrolled in our public schools. What do you figure that might cost? An additional $12 billion, at least? Meanwhile, the average starting salary for a public school teacher in the United States is $32K. As I pointed out, we already have a Federal program in place to provide a free or subsidized school lunch (and usually also breakfast and snack) to more than 30 million children in the United States, To the extent that this may not be enough for some small percentage of students to mitigate any significant malnutrition-related learning deficits, there are other Federal programs in place to provide assistance to families in need. Do I believe that these programs can and should be expanded? Of course. Tell that to the millions of people in this country who vote for politicians on the basis of promises to not increase their taxation rates. This isn't a problem in, say, Sweden. But I think it is a false argument to suggest that the educational problems and learning deficits in our public school system are meaninfgully caused or contributed to by malnutrition -- and also top suggest that, even if this were the case, that Alice Waters' proposal would have any meaningful effect, never mind an effect anywhere near as meaningful as, say, mandating that elementary school classrooms can not have a student-to-teacher ration higher than 15:1 and providing the financial assistance to make that happen. The point is, I think, that if we're going to radically increase federal assistance to the public school system -- something I generally support -- there are a lot of incredibly pressing needs in line before "free organic breakfast, snack and lunch for every student." I won't get into the economic apartheid we have in this country that says that local public schools are funded largely by local property taxes, except to say that you could make the exact same argument about giving every child in school a free breakfast, snack and lunch from a local organic farm.

Are they mutually exclusive? No. But, come on! Let's be realistic for a moment here. At some point we're getting into rank apology for some of the things she's proposing. Here is what she said: Now, I grew up in a family of academics. My father has been at major research universities for his entire career. My mother has worked both as a teacher in public schools and at research universities. My paternal grandparents were both educators. My mother-in-law has spend her entire career in public education. I have at least a half-dozen friends who are making their careers in public education. All of which I provide as an indication that I have some basis to know whereof I speak when I say that the educational system of this country is scandalously underfunded and perhaps the worst in the world among "first world" industrialized nations. So, when Bourdain suggests that taking those billions of dollars and putting them into the educational system that we have more children in this country who can read, write, do basic arithmetic, have a reasonable understanding of history, politics, science and the arts before we start talking about spending some of that money on free organic apples in the lunchroom, I am with him 100%. No, they are not mutually exclusive. But, please. Let's get our priorities in order. Reading before free organic food. Given the difficulties we're having in simply getting enough money into the school system to have decent facilities and materials, student-to-teacher ratios below 20:1, compensating teachers well enough to get the best, brightest and most talented educators, etc. -- Waters' vision is pretty far down on my list, and amounts fundamentally to painting gold leaf on the top of the dam while there's water spilling through cracks down at the bottom. This, again, is an example of the ways that Waters and her message can turn people off. I can't imagine what my mother-in-law would think of Alice were she told that they should be rounding up money to serve free farmer's market food in the Junction City, Kansas public schools when there is such a desparate need for more books and teachers and, frankly, all the kinds of things that will simply help them keep the kids in school instead of turning tricks with soldiers from the Army base at age 15.

I think it's a little absurd to suppose that such a list would be, should be or is received as a definitive ranking of the best pizzas in America. I take it more like when a Sports Illustrated writer comes up with a #1 to #32 ranking of all the teams in the NFL. Another writer is going to rank them differently, and the fans will never agree. If anything, it should be clear from the article that Richman has certain preferences when looking at a pizza. He seems to be fairly firmly focused on the crust, for example, and does not seem particularly fond of the "pile on the toppings" style of pizza. Someone who had those preferences would very likely have ranked Di Fara #1 and would have had an entirely different list on the basis of those preferences. This is the nature of the beast. By it's very nature, this piece is "Alan Richman's 25 Best Pizzas in America (based on the pizzas that he tried when he was there, and perhaps already partially invalidated by the opening of new pizzerias, etc.)." I don't personally agree with him on the primacy of American pizza styles over Italian styles (and there are more Italian models than the Neapolitan one). But I think he was right to not include "Chicago deep dish style" (not so much because it's not good, but because it operates in such a widely different stylistic space from all the others) and absolutely correct to refuse all "all demands that I visit an adored pizzeria." I can't tell you how many times I've had mediocre-at-best pizza at a pizzeria that some friend lauded as "the best in the country... and wouldn't you know it, it's right in my hometown of Nacogdoches, Texas (or Clackamas, Oregon or wherever). The fact is that the preponderance of these adored pizzerias suck, and the ones that don's suck are invariably on the foodie radar as outstanding in their class and therefore already calling to someone like Richman on that basis.

This struck me as odd for someone who preaches Alice Waters' brand of orthodoxy: Most shark fins are obtained by "finning" the sharks, which involves cutting the fin off the shark and then dumping the shark back in the ocean where, unable to swim, it sinks to the bottom and dies. Finning also represents an approximately 98% waste of shark meat from the whole shark. Not to mention that sharks are a vital part of the ocean ecosystem, and that the reduction in their numbers by finning and long line commercial fishing, etc. is believed to be responsible for some of the negative changes we see in various fisheries. I, personally, would really have to think twice before I ate some shark fin soup.

Um... I don't know if you've been checking, but 99% of the pizza in America is crap.

I am right now looking at a can of La Valle DOP San Marzano pomodori pelati. Calcium chloride is not listed as an ingredient. Looking on the internet, I also do not find calcium chloride listed as an ingredient in cans of whole peeled tomatoes by Bel Aria, San Marzano tomatoes by Ciao, and others.

I don't think that any of the viable candidates that didn't and up making this list is at risk of being "broken" due to not being included in Alan Richman's Top 25.

Again, I suppose it just depends on your priorities. I have always only found Di Fara's square pizza worth a measure of the hoopla, and have consistently found the regular pizza good steel deck oven pizza but not in any way approaching a "best in the city" level.

Heh. I think it's important to keep in mind that these are one person's impressions based on his preferences and priorities, and also recorded at the time he sat down. I have a hard time understanding why he didn't love Franny's, whose crusts I have always found to my liking and which certainly get plenty of attention from he pizzaioli, and I'm sure others can't understand why Di Fara isn't on the list. I also love true Neapolitan style pizza.

I anticipate that a reasonable amount of salt would find its way into the infused vermouth or gin. That wouldn't work with the rinse idea, but it still might work to amp up the aroma in combination with using some infused vermouth or gin.

I would think that a good way to make Dirty Martinis would be to take some flavorful but not too salty brine-cured olives and soak them in vermouth for some period of time. Then discard the olives and use the infused vermouth as the brine flavoring element in the drink. Alternatively, you could explore infusing the olives into gin if the vermouth's stability over time was an issue. I would think that a good way to make a Dirty Martini would be to get an oversize glass, rinse or mist the glass with some olive-flavored and/or brine-flavored liquid, and then pour in a wet Martini such that there was a significant collar.

Alan Richman's series is definitely the best!

If you plan on this being a working pan, you are going to have to resign yourself to the fact that it is not going to retain that flawless mirror finish. A minor amount of elbow grease and some Bar Keeper's Friend will get anything off that pan.

Actually, my friend has been on TV several times on this subject, and has recently been filmed for part of a French documentary. I think that part of the reason she has had these opportinities is because she seems "normal" to people who don't subscribe to what can seem like a pretty extreme lifestyle, and she's not preachy (both of these things are pitfalls into which many of the other advocates of this cause have fallen). But, more germane to this discussion, whether or not you can contrive reasons and excuses for why Waters can reasonably appear condescending to people due to the ways she expresses her message is beside the point. The point is that she does.

Let me give you an example from my own life: A good friend of mine is very much an advocate of anticonsumerism and avoiding waste -- especially waste that involves the use of non-degradable plastics, etc. She lived The Compact for a year, etc. She is someone who won't buy anything that comes in plastic. As in, she won't buy cheese at Murray's if they put it in their wrapping paper becuse it is lined with plastic (luckily, you can get them to just give you the cheese). She really did spend a hundred bucks on a hemp shower curtain that is made without plastic. Now, she could spend a lot of time clucking her tongue at me every time I buy a bottle of San Pellegrino, and saying things such as, "some people spend $100 on Nike shoes and other people choose to spend that $100 on a plastic-free hemp shower curtain." This would, among other things, result in my seeing a lot less of her. Instead, she exemplifies her ideals in her own life, is happy to talk about her thoughts and ideas with anyone who asks, is never judgmental about other people's choices, is understanding and appreciative of the fact that her lifestyle is not always an easy one and involves some radical rethinking of priorities and preferences, etc. In short, she is much more likely to explain how you can have a reusable metal water bottle and actually have great filtered water for an even lower price than she is to give you any kind of crap about that bottle of Poland Spring you just bought. And if you feel like talking about the commodification of water, she's happy to talk about that too. The result of all this has been a far greater change in my personal behavior and consumption, and a far greater receptiveness to any future anticonsumerism evangelizing from this friend than could ever have been accomplished had she talked down to me from a position of smug moral superiority.

Um... No. Actually, none of them is a factual statement. They are all statements of opinion. And, more to the point, they convey the sense of "my choices and priorities are better than your choices and priorities." Sorry, I didn't read your original statement closely enough. I typed my reply in haste this morning. Yes, I see they're all statements of opinion. And to expand on my other point, that if those statements cause you to feel put upon, well, some people might react negatively, while some people might listen to you, and of those that listen, they might choose to use your information as they see fit depending on other factors. So people perceive AW as condescending. So what? Do they really think she talks like that all the time to everyone she encounters? Even the people who she works with? That's....interesting. I feel as if her critics want her to be the perfect media figure for the foodie community. Not going to happen. Look... I don't find Alice particularly condescending, because I agree with many of the things she says. However, the fact of the matter is that when she makes a statement that other people can reasonably interpret as saying that her ideas and priorities are more important and correct than their ideas and priorities, and when the statement conveys the flavor of "if only you would just improve yourself, you would be more like me and see that I'm right and you're wrong" . . . well, people are going to find that condescending. And you know what? That is pretty much the dictionary definition of condescending to someone. Whether or not you think it's....interesting that some people may find Alice Waters condescending is really not germane. Neither is it germane how she speaks to her colleagues, co-workers and peers. Indeed, part of "talking down to people" is that you don't condescend to the people you consider equals. Members of the peerage don't condescend to one another, they condescend to the peasants -- to their "lessers." Who cares how Alice Waters is perceived by the staff at Chez Panisse? So, what is germane is exactly how Alice Waters message is reasonably perceived by someone who owns a $100 pair of running shoes but doesn't spend $6 a bunch on heirloom grapes. Yes... some people might listen to her and some people might not be turned off by the way she expresses her message. I'm just explaining how it is also reasonable for some other people to find it condescending as a way of explaining what some are calling a "backlash," and also suggesting that she might reach more people if she changed her modes of expression a bit. I think of Alice Waters a bit like a kind of "sustainable/slocal/organic Martha Stewart" -- which is to say that, like Martha, she's holding herself up as an example of a person that everyone should strive to be emulate, like a kind of quasi-messianic foodie. And as Martha and others have found out, when circumstances -- be they economics, publicity, whatever -- go against this sort of public figure, so can public opinion. And the next thing you know, they're calling for Barabbas.

Um... No. Actually, none of them is a factual statement. They are all statements of opinion. And, more to the point, they convey the sense of "my choices and priorities are better than your choices and priorities."

HUH? Who is asking you to? This would be, e.g., the implication that one should forego $100 shoes in favor of $100 worth of organic food from the farmer's market. I'd say that there are plenty of reasons to think that buying $100 of organic food at a farmer's market is better - yes, there, I said it - BETTER - than spending $100 for a pair of shoes. I'd say that the $100 spent at the farmer's market is good for you, good for the local economy, good for the planet. Can you seriously say the same for a $100 pair of shoes? The point is that when you tell people that your choices are better than their choices, they can feel like you're talking down to them, etc. For example, I could tell you that spending that $100 on a donation to Médecins Sans Frontières is better - yes, there, I said it - BETTER - than spending $100 of organic food at a farmer's market. Or, I could tell you that spending that $100 on a hemp shower curtain that doesn't contain any non-degradable plastic is better - yes, there, I said it - BETTER - than spending $100 of organic food at a farmer's market. Or I could tell you that spending that $100 to attend a performance of your local symphony orchestra is better - yes, there, I said it - BETTER - than spending $100 of organic food at a farmer's market. Or I could tell you that spending that $100 on a ticket to the Citymeals on Wheels benefit gala is better - yes, there, I said it - BETTER - than spending $100 of organic food at a farmer's market. I could go on, and I could give examples of reasons why each of these things would be so. How's that make you feel?

Thinking about this some more, I would say that if someone wants to experiment with different tomato sauces for pasta that don't migrate out of that category into other styles such as meat sauces or sauces in which the tomato plays an equal or even subordinate role to other ingredients (e.g., amatriciana, etc.), then there are certain ways to look at it. I would say that these are the usual suspects: Base Ingredient Fresh Whole canned tomatoes Crushed tomatoes Tomato puree Tomato paste Aromatics Onion Garlic Celery Carrot Fennel Red bell peppers Green bell peppers Lipids Olive oil Butter Rendered animal fats (lard, bacon, duck, etc.) Herbs and Spices Thyme Parsley Oregano Basil Celery seed Liquids White wine Red wine Dry vermouth Vodka Broth or stock Cream Water Spicy Heat Dry red pepper Fresh spicy pepper Black pepper Extra Flavorings Added in Small Amounts Anchovy Dried porcini Then comes the question of how are these things going to be prepared/treated/etc. Questions such as: Whole Canned Tomatoes Hand-crush? Dice? Food mill? Size of die? Mill before or after cooking? Keep whole? Tomato Paste Maillardize? Aromatics Size/shape of cut? Or whole? Mill after cooking? Sweat? Maillardize? When add? Keep in finished sauce or cook and remove? How much to use relative to tomatoes? Texture Chunky? Food mill? Size of die? Blender? Herbs and spices When add? Fresh or dry? Lipids "Mount" at the end? Liquids When to add (e.g., vodka, cream)? Spicy Heat When to add? I'm sure I'm missing something, but that seems like the basics. So, I think you can more or less mix and match to come up with whatever you want.

You mean, men other than men like, ummm, Bourdain? I think that there is a salient difference to be noted here. Bourdain is the sort of guy who will make a bunch of arrogant, elitist and condescending remarks about something, and then follow it up with something like: "But what do I know? At this point I'm a washed-up douchebag former cook who lucked into a career as a douchebag TV personality, and I just had two hot dogs for lunch." This kind of self-effacing humor is a big part of what makes people like him. In saying the things he says and following them up that way, he's not putting himself in the position of being an "elevated personage" whom everyone should aspire to emulate.

Some people, I think, are so used to the idea that a tomato sauce should be packed with tablespoons of herbs, laced with flavorful meats and redolent of many cloves of garlic, that a simple tomato and butter sauce may seem "bland" to them. This is also an issue I observe in NYC pizza preferences, where those for whom the basic paradigm of a pizza sauce is exemplified by Di Fara's multi-herbed, pancetta-flavored, garlicey sauce find the simple Neapolitan-style treatment of tomato, salt and olive oil lacking in flavor and "zip." I know that this is something I have posted about on and off over the years, but I think there is a phenomenon that happens sometimes where the adornment becomes the game. The sauce becomes more important than the pasta; the toppings become more important than the pizza crust; and, in this case, sometimes what we think of when we think of "tomato sauce for pasta" is really the flavor of garlic (or garlic and herbs, or whatever) in a tomato substrate rather than the flavor of tomato -- which is to say that what we're "tasting for" is the other things rather than the tomato. Personally -- and this is something I see in the evolution of a lot of cooks and palates -- when I first became intensely interested in cuisine and started doing a lot of cooking, it was all about big, intense flavors and the more the better. Every tomato sauce was packed with aromatics and meats and herbs, and the more garlic the better. (I think that most cooks go through an early stage of "everything is better with a million cloves of garlic.") People talked about the primacy of the main ingredients and letting them speak for themselves, but I don't think it really sank in at that point. Later on, and after a number of long stays in Italy, I began to come around to a different view and my cooking went increasingly in the direction of simplicity, restraint and subtlety. I won't say that it's a "better" or "higher" way of cooking or consuming cuisine, it's just become my way. Nickrey, if you were looking for a sauce that was going to blow your head off with intensity of flavor and/or many layers of different flavors, or was going to taste of anything but sweet tomato, then I can understand why you were disappointed. I think that, among the many people who really do love this sauce, what they like about it and can find revelatory about it is the sweetness and the fact that it tastes of tomato in a way that other sauces do not. The subtlety of its flavor is one of the reasons it works so well with things such as gnocchi and ravioli di ricotta, whose light flavors typically get lost in a more emphatic sauce. On the other hand, I wouldn't think of using this sauce with, say, sausages or something whose strong flavors call for an equally strong-flavored sauce. One thing that I will say can make a big difference in a sauce such as this where the primacy of the main ingredient is so important is the quality of the tomatoes. When I make this sauce, I always use whole DOP San Marzano tomatoes. I suppose I might go as far down the tomato ladder as to use Muir Glen tomatoes, but if I don't have tomatoes at least that good, I'll make something else. I also wouldn't make this sauce with pre-crushed tomatoes. As for the time and amounts, I can't really say for sure. I put it on the stove in a heavy copper pan, and after a while it looks done to me. Could be 20 minutes... could be 40 minutes. I don't time it, and it probably depends on the heat setting anyway. For a 28 ounce can of San Marzanos I probably use 4 or 5 tablespoons of butter. And using enough salt is crucial.

Grazie, Dottore. I'm not sure that makes a meaningful difference in the example I'm making. Everyone eats and virtually everyone in our society listens to music. It's a question of trying to change habits and expose people to new ways of being not only for their individual good but for the good of society as a whole, and what kinds of messages and ways of expressing those messages are likely to be taken in a way that makes the listener more receptive as opposed to less receptive.