Stone

Where is this Hindu Heartland? There is one Hindu kingdom on Earth and it is called Nepal. The Nepalese strike me as a fairly tolerant people. Surely, there are many Western-style restaurants in Kathmandu and nobody is blowing them up. I'm not sure if they serve beef or not, but do you have evidence that a steakhouse in Kathmandu would somehow be attacked by Hindus? Surely, plenty of Buddhists live in Nepal with no problem, and I think I read somewhere that the largest Passover seder in the world is held annually in Kathmandu. Steve -- you'll have a very hard time finding beef anywhere in Nepal; I don't recall seeing any in Kdu. It's all water buffalo. And I think there are many Hindu areas in India and elsewhere where a beef joint would not be tolerated. People have been killed on rumors that they killed a cow -- recently. There are castes in India who are permitted to skin cows that have died of natural causes. Recently, five members of the caste were accused of killing a cow and skinning it. They were lynched.

It appears that the Phillips has been discontinued from Target. Dave -- are you still happy with yours? Or is this the one you were talking about?

Don't know what that means.

Come on, I can't be the only person that grew up eating only bologna sandwiches for a whole year (I'm thinking 2nd grade). Steve P -- why do you insist on quoting people without including their identity? It's like the Plotnicki water torture.

All wars, at the root, are fought over resources. Access to fertile land and water, then stored food was the locus of wars early in man's history. Slave labor became an objective of warriors. The wars between the tribes of Native Americans were about resources. Over time, control of natural resources replaced food, and control of cheap labor replaced slave labor as objectives of war. Organized religion, allied with the ruling class, was the handmaiden of the war makers. Name a major war and dig deep and you will uncover an economic base of the conflict. More death and destruction has been justified in the name of one god or another but really fought to control some resource. You think? Maybe you know more about it than me, but were the Crusades about economics? What economic benefit did the Christians in England think they were going to gain by taking back Palestine from the Muslims? Sure, we can come up with something (Christian control of the Silk Road?), but do you know of whether that was an actual motivation? How about the Crusade against the Jews in 1200 or so when tens of thousands were killed? Do you think they would have been killed if they weren't Jewish but, I don't know, Kurds? O.k., maybe they would have been, but I would expect it was because they were "different." Sure, we complain that the "others" are coming and taking our jobs and our women and all that -- but isn't that a rationalization of our bigotry?

As we saw with the massive growth of fundamentalist Christianity in the 80's, there are many reasons people turn to religion. Some are because of ease (my understanding is that, yes, when early Christians were distinguishing themselves from Judiasm, there was a concerted effort to make the practice easier -- also, it fit in well with what Jesus said; also, many newer Buddhist sects (Soka Gakai is the one I'm familiar with) make practice much easier); some are because people want the rules and "leadership" they get from a strict religion. There is no one, two or three answers to explain a history of religion.

Jumping back in for a second (maybe this was already raised): For a long time, Jews were not allowed to eat with non-Jews. (It was self-imposed; different from non-Jews not letting us into their country clubs.) Bread and wine were not allowed to be made by non-Jews (supposedly similar to Japanese laws against importing rice -- the stuff was too important to create a dependency on the goyim). Even today, I'm told that for wine to be kosher, it must be made by Jews only, or boiled. Them some segregating laws.

Well, I know I'll get spanked for this, but: How good can noodles be? I've had some great noodles, but they were just, you know, noodles. I want Iron Chef stuff.

Just to jump in briefly -- Steve, the great gimmick of religion is that they've convinced people that the noblest virtue of believing in God is that you have absolutely no rational basis for believing in God. They call it "faith". And the less reason you've got for believing, the more you should believe, because "faith" is what God loves. Jumping out.

I realize that almost all the "Japanese" food I eat is sushi. Sometimes I get a teriyaki rice bowl for lunch (not too good). Sometimes tempura in noodle soup. Good but nothing special. Where in SF can I go to get real Japanese food. Not some teriyaki steak sliced Beni Hana style on the griddle, but Iron Chef type stuff.

Nice to have a neighborhood person around. Have you been to Platanos, at 18th (where the Ethiopian restaurant used to be)?

Do you include places like Delfina, Antica Trattori, Pane y Vino and I Frascati in this? Or just the Little Italy types of place?

According to my sister the advertiser, Americans think that British are more intelligent and trustworthy. As for why Americans flock to "Euro" everything, ask my ex-girlfriend because she sure did.

Really? Which? S&P? Yes. Just the glory of the meat and the meat in all it's glory.

Cut rings of pineapple. Put a marachino cherry in each. Affix to lamb with clove spikes. (Personally, I'd just have one with just a bit of salt and pepper. Simple, but damned good.)

What do we win?

You're right about there being no Ethiopian in NY. But I only know of 1 left in SF (out in the Sunset). Thai in NY probably as good as in SF. SF vietnamese probably beats NY (not Slanted Door, but there's a lot of Vietnamese in Chinatown that I haven't tried. I haven't found good Mexican in SF that's anything more than a burrito joint. They're great, but they're burrito joints. (Tell me where I'm missing, I'll go.) Where is BBQ in SF? Big Nates? Haven't tried it. Anything else? And the sushi in SF is very disappointing and inconsistent. I've had great sushi at some places (Tokyo Go Go, Sushi Groove (but I hate that place), Blowfish) and the same places will also serve little slivers of fish at astronomical prices. NY is much better.

I do this with twizzlers. Sometimes I can play quite the tune.

Yes, the second ones I discussed are called spring rolls in NY (and perhaps elsewhere). They are called egg rolls in SF. I've yet to find anything in SF similar to the egg rolls in NY.

In NY, I grew up with fat egg rolls in a "pastry" crust. They're filled with chopped cabbagey stuff, bits of minced roast pork and maybe some small shrimp. Loved 'em. In other cities, the egg rolls are thinner (like a tube of nickels), with a thin, almost rice paper wrapper. The insides are not chopped as much, usually with bean sprouts (which I don't like). They tend to be much greasier (although the "NY" style can also be very greasy). I miss the NY style. I also miss duck sauce. In SF, when you get any sauce with an egg roll, it's a thin, bright red sweet sauce.

This came out great. I had a 2 1/2 pound hunk of salmon. I mixed up a 1/2 pound of fresh uncooked crab, about 3-4 tblsp of homemade mayo, same amount of homemade breadcrumbs and some chopped tarragon (as usual, I used too much tarragon, I always forget how strong it is). I put the fish in a 350-ish oven (with so many things going in and out of the oven yesterday I have no idea what the temp was) for about 8-10minutes. Took it out and spread the crab mixture, with a thin sprinkling of more bread crumbs on top. Put it back for another 8-10 minutes. It was perfect.

Last night I cooked a 4 bone rib roast using a regular thermometer (not instant read, not electric). The thermometer said the inside got to 125-30, but when I deboned, the meat near the bone was pretty raw. The rest of the meat was edible, but very rare.

Like a woman's skirt. Long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting.

yes yes yes. that's why I'm adding it to the kale.

I'll tell you tomorrow night.