Bux

Well put, and Ingrid, when I was 21 I thought the best place to pick up girls was the Museum of Modern Art, but after reading your post, I'd advise young men to head to Whole Foods and browse the organic zuchinni if he wants to meet the kind of women I was looking to meet.

Poor Rachael Ray. The left handed compliment of being better than Sandra Lee may be the cruelest cut of all. She's much better, but I posted to respond to the 70%/30% comment. To that I might reply that it's close enough for government standards. We live in a world of varying tolerances and standards. Lee doesn't seem to meet any standard for taste, nutrition, economy, efficiency or literacy, but you never caught Barnum or Menken mentioning any of those as criteria for making a buck in America.

If we don't take things people say or write literally, we run a greater risk of misinterpreting these people, or worse yet, putting words in their mouths. The piece does indeed say some valid things, but defuses those things by the way they're connected. There are people who buy organic the way others buy designer labels, or just plain brand names. Brand names may offer a certain sense of security in terms of quality and perhaps health and safety the way designer names bring a sense of security to fashion victims. There are people who buy organic out of a sense of duty or guilt. They're "doing their part to save the world" perhaps. There are shoppers who have a good understanding of the terms involved and those who are really clueless. There are people who buy "local" out of understandging and those who just buy from the Greenmarkets because it seems fashionable. So far, I've defined four separate, though likely overlapping, groups. I feel Julie blurs the distinctions, which in turn, hurts her ultimate arguments. I seem to agree with her conclusion, but not because she's argued it well, but becasue it's obvious to me. The problem with the article for me, is not that it's poorly written or that the arguments are poorly made, but that good movements and good people are unnecessarily tarred along the way. No one will support the argument for good taste more than I will. I'll buy the better tasting tomato, although I'll need a sample to convince me. Nevertheless, I might buy the tomato with the inferior taste if I had reason to believe the superior tasting tomato was laced with poison, had been produced with slave labor, or that I was supporting any number of unethical operations by my purchase. I also might buy the inferior tomato if it was significantly less expensive assuming it too was free of poisons and not supporting unethical activities. A lot of things go through a persons head and it's unfair to stereotype any group, let alone to create a group for that purpose. I've heard enough about some of the factory conditions in which some chickens are raised, slaughtered and packaged to scare me away from them just a little bit, but if you find a good tasting Purdue chicken, let me know, I might buy it. No one needs to tell me there's no such thing. The evidence I have suggests that's true, but I'm open to new evidence. Generally speaking, I've found little correlation between price and taste of chicken among the smaller brands either. I find that as each "organic" or "free range" brand gets larger and subcontracts the raising of their chickens, the quality becomes less consistent. In the end, my Greenmarket supplier is more dependable. Chickens are a good standard for discussion. There's a hell of a difference in price between the least expensive supermaket or discount meat market chicken and the more expensive free range birds, but very good chicken can still be a better buy in terms of taste and nutrition than poor quality beef. Naturally, if you're eating chicken as a splurge from beans, I'm not making an argument that's applicable. As for beef, I pay a lot more at Whole Foods than at other supermarkets and maybe more than at some butchers, but more often than not, I've really enjoyed the taste of the meat. How do you say something is over priced when it provides something its less expensive competitor doesn't?

Distribution of the golden eggs is rarely a major problem, but once they get their hands on the goose, that's another story.

I don't read Italian, but the description on this page seems to asnwer the question. I don't read Italian, but I'm surprised by how much I've learned just by knowing a bit of menu Italian. Knowing the Italian for angel hair pasta and dried pasta, it was easy to identify "hair dryer" as one of the amenities listed in another hotel web site. Experience with pasta has a broadening effect beyond just one's waistline. Let me add that this is a very helpful thread as we start to contemplate a trip to northern Italy for a fall. Cy, you've got a few years on me, but I don't think I can match your eating pace, let alone take notes on all I eat.

I was struck reading this thread by how often people have told me they're intimidated by fancy restaurants as if they were some sort of club with a secret membership. It's the three star restaurants that generally bend over backwards to make the diner feel at home and comfortable. They take it upon themselves to understand not only international customs, but the customs of the many countries from which their diners hail in an effort to make diners comfortable. It's the mom and pop restos of foreign countries that are the real private clubs and where you are expected to know the local rules and customs. Pierre's post reinforces Felice's comments. Eating in bistros probably better prepares one to enjoy a four or five fork and spoon restaurant, but the opposite may not be true. It's also worth noting that the number of kitchen staff in a restaurant such as Lucas Carton is far greater in proportion to the number of diners than it is at a place like Au Bon Accueil where there's undoubtedly few people standing around and less open counter space. Mostly I suspect, it's largely a matter of custom.

What you saw of the presentation was almost all you got, in that two of the three judges offered nothing that would allow more insight into the dishes. In a contest where points are awarded for originality, it just seems counterproductive to have a panelist who's so closed to so much and another who hasn't much to say about the food. Almost all of the food looked, not only good enough to eat, but actually tempting, but Adam Perry Lang's preparations appeared to be the most enticing, they also appeared to be the most interesting looking. Not being able to taste any of the food, I wasn't particularly disturbed to see Flay win, maybe it did taste better, but to see him win on presentation points was a joke. This episode might have been better without a jury or their vote. I enjoyed watching them cook. I was particularly struck with Lang's range and finesse. I think others have commented that Flay's food quickly begins to look familar with a limited style. It's kind of interesting that Lang has made his name with barbecue in NY. He's very versatile.

That's a statement I can easily support. At worst, it's in a class where subjective taste, more than any objective criticism, is going to make it a diner's favorite or not. It's a thrilling place to have a meal.

Julie said ") Classic French sauces were conceived to ennoble less-than-prime beef." That's not particularly related to disguising offal in sauces. There's prime filet mignon and there's prime sweetbreads, kidney and liver. Wonderbread is a relatively new bread in the history of man's bread. Perhaps the reality is that we took the development of white flour and the discovery of sliced bread too seriously and are currently making the necessary corrections. Taking food seriously is not a crime, but I'm prepared to ignore wonderbread at this point in time. You need not do the same.

I'd have to disagree at least somewhat. Preservation was a factor whenever people started keeping food to guard against times of scarcity, whether merely seasonal (winter, drought season, monsoon season) or periodic (severe droughts that would otherwise lead to severe famines, locust plagues, etc.). If you save enough for a rainy day (so to speak), does that really mean you have an "excess"? ← If you have enough to save, it means you aren't impoverished. The need to save is determined not by poverty but by climate, growing seasons and stuff not necessarily related to poverty or excess although there's obviously the need for seasonal excess. That's necessity, not poverty, being the nurturing mother of invention. Invention in this case being the means of preserving food. If you have nothing to preserve, you're not likely to work at ways to preserve what you haven't got.

It's set apart by it's size, much smaller than Daniel, and by the fact that you have to have a tasting menu and spend a larger than large sum. It's my belief, based on experience, that if you spend the same sum at Daniel, especially if you call ahead and let them know you want the extended tasting menu (not available on weekends) you will get as good a meal, maybe better. Most people who compare the two, are comparing a $175 dinner with perhaps a $100 or $125 dinner. It's okay, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy having that dilemma. That probably goes for someone having to choose between Per Se and Daniel. I tend to agree with the idea that there are no bad tables at Per Se. I think there's a rule of thumb that says the larger the restaurant, the greater the chance of getting a bad table. That said, and although I'm not inclined to disagree that a table on edge of the balcony at Daniel is an excellent table, most people consider the lower exposed level as the preferable place to be. I find the whole concept of good table and bad table an interesting one and I've known of people who have changed their minds about there they want to sit when they learn which seats are considered preferable by others, or by the staff. It's quite like picking an apartment by the zip code or telephone exchange rather than local amenities or the view.

Nothing trumps elitism as much as reverse snobbism if you're playing to the crowd, but I'm sorry whatever the evils, perils or faults of the elitism she sees, may be, the solutions are not in just doing the opposite and becoming anti-elitist which is really nothing more than the mirror image with the same faults in a parallel universe. Then again I suspect she knows that and took several awkward turns, so that I'm not sure where she's headed most of the time. She loves ugly tomatoes, which is how she describes an heirloom tomato I'd call delicious before I'd note it was perhaps ugly. Again she describes favored asparagus by its size, not taste. Finally she admits she's unimpressed by the taste of a perfect peach. She's not suspicious of the cult of freshness, she's suspicious of taste. No wonder I couldn't relate to her take on Julia Child's recipes. I also think it puts her in an odd position to talk about other people's reasons for buy or preferring what they do. Sorry Julie, fresh local and seasonal ingredients are what classic French food has been all about and it's no surprise France has lost much of its reputation in terms of gastronomy as it's moved from an agricultural nation to an industrial nation and begun to import much of its food. Alice Waters, if anyone needs reminders, learned to love fresh season produce in France. It's true Waters and Child saw different things in French food and perhaps brought different aspects of what was great about French food home to America, but I believe they are not exactly the opposites others make them out to be. I have no trouble seeing the person who can appreciate a fowl stuffed round as a ball with truffles and fine forcemeat and a plate of excellent sauerkraut, as having superior taste to the person who is perfectly satisfied with just either one, but Julie Powell, ever not the snob herself, sees it necessary to pit the one against the other. To which I need to react as I began this post. I wonder even if it's a good translation of Brillat-Savarin, let alone a valid point She presents her interpretations and prejudices as facts. Almost all of the people I know who shop at Whole Foods, appreciate fine classic French haute cuisine and nuevo cocina as well as ethnic cuisines, organic produce and local produce. Some of them, like myself, also shop in Chinatown, but she can't distinguish between Whole Foods and the Union Square Greenmarket across the street from one of the Whole Foods shops and Russ and Fat Guy have observed. As far as I know, Whole Foods takes food stamps as may some of the Greenmarket vendors. The most objectionable statement in this article may be "Shopping is the province of the privileged; fine cooking is not," although the sentence that follows should stick in the craw of any culinary scholar. "Indeed, great cuisine arose from privation." Bullshit. Fine cooking is indeed the province of those with the time to make it or the money to hire someone else to do it. Fine cooking occurs in private homes on every economic level whether it's done by impoverished housewives or professional chefs employed by the rich. Necessity is more nurturing than poverty. Preservation was never a factor until someone had an excess of food. It's not the need of the impoverished any more than outfitting a sailing ship to find new routes for the spice trade. "Classic French sauces were conceived to ennoble less-than-prime beef. A burrito is nothing more than a delicious disguise for inelegant leftovers." At least I can be sure she read HL Menken and PT Barnum. Oddly enough, if she was off track for the whole ride. she arrives at a station I can support better than her own arguments seem to support. "Brillat-Savarin sought to find others like himself, . . . who truly enjoyed food." Yes, you can't justifiably label a shopper by the market he choses at any given moment. Why didn't she say that earlier?

The world didn't start when I was born and my father always reminded us about the Great Depression. On the other hand, he loved his mother's cooking, so I could be wrong -- but having had his mother's cooking, I could only guess what the rest of the food was like in 1929.

Edsel, I don't have any evidence to contradict your reading of Santi's comments. It may well be that I'm projecting how I might feel if I were as accomplished a chef as Santi and if my philosophies and talents seemed to be playing second fiddle to a flashier style in the press. I certainly wouldn't suggest that Adrià was not connected to tradition or that Santi was any less disconnected. They are both driven by their philosophies and neither is content to serve just a better version of what one might eat in a typical Catalan house, but both are heavily rooted in Catalan culture, cuisine and raw products. Santi's food is less "technical" in the sense I find people using the word "technical" today, although his techniques are no less demanding. I don't believe that chefs are best appreciated in comparison with other chefs, but on their own merit. Nevertheless I think we, as humans, have a need to make these comparisons in an effort to understand because nothing exists in a vacuum. Knowing one chef makes it easier for me to appreciate another chef, without necessarily comparing the two.

Back to nutella (sort of). I bought a jar of chestnut spread. I enjoy it in place of jam or preserves on morning brioche or croissant. I found this particular (Italian) brand rather lacking in chestnut flavor and a bit too sweet. Taking a clue from another (also Italian) brand which lists cocoa and rum as minor ingredients, I added a scant teaspoon of Dutch cocoa powder to the chestnut spread. I'm not sure I can discern the flavor of cocoa, but it took the edge off the sweetness and definitely added a complexity and depth of flavor.

Hmm, in the original and mythological Judgment of Paris, Paris, the judge, was not only subject to considerable promise of bribes by the three contestants, but, to my understanding, made his decision on the basis of the most appealing promised reward. The short version is that the king of Sparta did not take kindly to the loss of Helen his queen and that Trojan civilization was destroyed in the war that followed. I didn't sense any blatant attempts at bribery from any of the contestants in either the contemporary reports or in George Taber's book, but I'll leave him to comment further on what parallels he might draw. A google search will discover that Judgment of Paris has not been an uncommon title others have chosen as a catchy title for a number of diverse articles. It was the title chosen by Taber, or by Time's editors and it stuck well enough to be used as the title for the book. You can read the original surprisingly short article Judgment of Paris, as it appeared in TIME on June 7, 1976, on the Chateau Montelena web site. You can click through to read contemporary media coverage of the tasting soon after it became an event as well as articles written on the 20th anniversay of that tasting. Leave it a winner to document the tasting for posterity.

I thnk it's fair to say that he's bending over backwards not just to disassociate himself from Adrià who's captured the attention of the media, particularly the English speaking media, but to be critical of a certain technical direction in New Spanish Cooking. On the other hand, there's nothing reactionary about his food, nor is there a sense of being stuck in the past, or stuck in any mode other than insisting on top quality raw materials. He's intent on providing a superior experience for the diner and one that he's not likely to find at home. Not only does he prefer unprocessed products, but he prefers wild foods rather than those grown on farms. Naturally that leads to using a lot of local seafood. My guess is that fresh wild unfrozen local shell fish is far more available in Catalunya than in most American markets. I wouldn't know if he never uses frozen fish.

Good value occurs at all price points although we tend to restrict the term to "budget" restaurants. Cinc Sentits looms as one of, if not the, best value of our visit to Barcelona in the spring, although it's not in the budget class. It's probably a good time to remind people that new restaurants tend to increase their prices as they gather a clientele and perhaps positive reviews. Very often the top rated restaurants are still good values as what they offer can't be had elsewhere at any price, but it's also worth considering that they were probably better values before the ratings allowed them to raise the price.

I hope you didn't take the taxi on my adivce, now I owe you two drinks.

NY had very bad food in 1929. That's probably a point not to be overlooked. As for the egg cream, I only have rozrap's opinion. I've not had one there. Believe me, I wanted to like the place. I thought it was terrific looking. The funny thing was that when we mentioned having breakfast there, the person we knew in the area gave us a look that said we should have known better than to eat there.

Perhaps buried in a post by Almass is an important point that I believe was picked up by Adam as well. It's about communication and expectation. You want to cook chicken in tomato sauce and tell your kids it's boeuf bourguignon, go ahead. You want to tell them 2 + 2 = 7, fine. You want to tell them the sky is green and the sun is blue, okay by me, but understand that when they leave your house they're at a disadvantage. They can't talk with other people because they speak a language only they understand. We use langauge to communicate and we give names to things so we can talk about them. If I ask a waiter for a fork, he and I have to share a common undertanding of what a fork is before I can get what I want. That's why people have a hard time in foreign countries. They don't speak the same language. Open a restaurant and put chicken with olives on the menu as coq au vin in France and you're going to annoy your diners because they all share a communal understanding of what to expect. On the other hand, it may annoy no one in Topeka where perhaps most of the diners will ask what's in the dish anyway. All of this is dependent on context. Do you speak the langauge of the person to whom you're addressing? In NY diners are composed of three groups. Some diners have no idea what bouillabaisse is, some think it's some kind of expensive fish soup that varies from chef to chef and some pretty much know what it is and isn't and know you can't replicate it in NY. In that context, it's perfectly safe to call just about anything bouillabaisse as long as it has broth and fish or seafood, because we've destroyed the traditional meaning. Of course you may run across a disgruntled diner from Marseille, but anyone from Marseille crazy enough to order bouillabaisse in NY, gets what he deserves. The monkey wrench in the works is when there's an abrupt contextural change. When nouvelle cuisine chefs started calling any dish with three layers or more millefeuilles. Nouvelle cuisine developed it's own lingo, just as jazz and hip hop developed their own language. It was hard for outsiders to know if hot or cold was "hot," or if something was so good it was "bad." You had to be part of the private club. My point is that it's not a matter of the right or wrong word, but the communicative word. Words change meaning over time and dishes may change over time, or the name of a dish may evolve over time. In essence, we can argue night and day, but the changes will occur with or without message board approval. Soba, I don't believe marinara sauce was ever seafood based, but that marinara was a word used to describe the way fishermen cooked. Italian fishermen used a tomato sauce and that over time, at least in America, the sauce itself came to be called marinara sauce is much the way language develops or gets corrupted depending on our point of view. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it was a different sauce in the past and actually contained seafood rather than a tomato sauce used to flavor seafood? Moules marinière and cozze marinara share the same concept of deriving from the way fishermen cooked as chasseur and cacciatore derive from the way hunters prepared food. At least that would be my contention. I am open to better understanding.

Hmm. There are those who would say that's the authentic tourist experience. Paella is authentic to Alicante and Valencia. In Barcelona the local dish would be an arroz caldoso. It's a much different rice dish.

I think you're on to something. If animals are worthy of protection and if someone is concerned about the ethical treatment of animals, you'd think there'd be a movement to teach ethics to animals. It doesn't have to be a dog eat dog world. It's not right for lions to eat lambs. I might add they should be educated to respect human life as well and not eat people, but one thing at a time. The jungle is an evil place. The jungle is wrong. It sets a bad example for the civilized world. I would volunteer for this work, but there's no foie gras in the jungle.

Nueske's is excellent bacon, but there are plenty of other small producers that offer excellent bacon. Fresh tomatoes are only available in NY in August and perhaps September, give or take a week or two. Bibb lettuce would be my preference. It's the crispest of all the tasty leaf lettuces. Romaine would be good or even some young arugula. White or whole wheat toast sliced sort of thin would be my preference in bread. Homemade mayonnaise would make it really special. In fact, it would make it recommendable. That NY Magazine article referenced above is two years old, but if 'Wichcraft is making that sandwich and still using Tim Stark's tomatoes, I won't quibble about the bread or toasting just one side. rozrapp, I can't believe Eisenberg's made NY Magazine if my one meal there recently is any indication of the food. I certainly can't believe they got a mention for anything involving bacon if my breakfast was any indication of anything. Maybe at lunch you get today's bacon instead of yesterday's bacon. Utilitarian tomatoes do not make a recommendable BLT especially when the article starts with "What’s the best way to celebrate tomato season?" Next we'll be celbrating the grape harvest with Kool-Aid. What is it about celebrate that's hard to get? From the The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: "1. To extol or honor in a solemn manner; as, to celebrate the name of the Most High. [1913 Webster] 2. To honor by solemn rites, by ceremonies of joy and respect, or by refraining from ordinary business; to observe duly; to keep; as, to celebrate a birthday. [1913 Webster]" A utilitarian tomato is an ungodly thing and at best an object of ordinary business. Eisenberg's is place to have seen however. I can't believe I've never been inside until last week. I can't believe I'll go inside again, but all the time I was pushing around the homefries, I was thinking of what a great tapas bar it might make. You couldn't operate standing room only without a second exit though. Oh yeah, challah and bacon? That seems like pastrami and mayo, although I'll admit my wife likes bacon with matzoh brei.

Kitchen Arts & Letters 1435 Lexington Avenue Manhattan 212-876-5550, 212-876-3584 fax