johnb

It's been years since I was in Italy, although when I lived in Switzerland in the mid 70's we were down there all the time it seemed. But here's where I'm going with this. In the posts above, everybody is talking about Rome and Florence and so on -- cities. That's how most people experience Italy. And there are delights to be found there for sure. But you're shortchanging yourself if your trip to Italy consists of taking trains from city to city and only spending time in cities. You must also see the countryside. Rent a car and point it off in some direction or other -- consult Michelin for some ideas. Just go. Get lost. Don't worry. Where exactly you go is secondary. Just drive, and stop and take it in whenever a place looks interesting, which it will, a lot. Go up to the lakes. Find one of the fortified hill towns like the photo Joe posted just above. Everyone must do this if they plan to really see, and experience, Italy.

All things in moderation. Don't deny yourself the bad-for-you treats, but learn to make do with two or three reasonable bites, not 15-20. Worth the trouble of teaching yourself to stop. Anyway, once you've had enough to know what it tastes like, the additional pleasure from eating the remainder isn't so much.

More information here. Seems avoiding civic duty by paying a fair share of taxes, right wing extremism, and preservation of the established order have been high on the priority list. Revelations of all this (see the article) seem to have pried some of the money loose more recently; funny how impending eternity moderates people's view of things. Those who shop at IKEA thinking what a wonderful place it is may want to know where their money has gone though. There are interesting parallels here between this foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which is currently fourth on the list of foundations by assets. Hughes set it up purely as a way to keep his money out of the hands of the gummint, and did essentially nothing charitable with it during his life. But it got really big (it essentially owned the satellite TV business at one time). Finally, decent people got their hands on it, and now it is a major funder of cutting edge medical research. Many Nobel Prizes in medicine and allied areas have gone to scientists who are, for practical purposes, on HHMI's payroll. As an aside, among the HHMI Nobel winners/collaborators was one of the guys who proved that the human tongue has receptors for umami, thus proving that umami (the 5th taste) exists and is important in human evolution.

It all sounds like boloney to me!

Yes it is hard to in down precisely, but no doubt it belongs in the list. Here is a link to a Staten Island Advance story from last Fall that seems to have the history laid out fairly well. About 2/3's of the way down it refers to the place having been "in service" for more than 150 years. Meanwhile, it looks like Tavern on the Green is set to come back to life -- click

But wait! They themselves say that the place was among other things a saloon (i.e. a bar) in 1859. Also, it seems strange that an *extension* to the "bar and dining room" would have been built in 1890 if food and drink were not already being served, or that the mahogany bar was commissioned in 1890 if the place weren't serving drinks at that time; at the very least they surely were serving drinks from that date, which is 120+ years ago. I suspect the dates they gave you (in the 1990's) probably refer to the beginnings of the current management/ownership and the renovations they did at that time, not the beginnings of the business. To me, this illustrates the difficulty of getting trustworthy historic information when the institutional memory has been lost and the folks you're talking with don't have real information but only guesses, and even perhaps misunderstand the question being asked. Killmeyer's true history is clearly a tough nut to crack, but even based solely on your exchange there's little doubt in my mind the place was there serving food and drink long before 1996.

But this HAS been studied seriously, and we have more to go on than anecdotal evidence. My "blind certainty" as you call it is based on the scientific evidence, not anecdotes, nor on any personal belief or preference. I have no dog in this fight -- I really don't give a flying f*** if there is an MSG impact per se or not, or whether you or anyone else avoids it or not. But what I do care about is that people make decisions, take actions, and most of all make policy that affects others, on the basis of scientific evidence, not beliefs, not superstitions, not anecdotes. The problem with this MSG thing, and why it gets me agitated, is that just letting it and such issues go when they arise and get passed around as fact, is that it condones and even further promotes lazy and dubious (i.e. non-scientific) thinking generally, and that mode of thought in turn allows society to make really dumb decisions in really important areas like global climate change denial, or turning the free market loose with no regulation, or like Linda's example, not vaccinating our kids because we think it causes autism. The way to make best and most often right decisions is to apply scientific principles (Linda's reference to scientific literacy), and we do ourselves no favors as a society when we use bad approaches even in innocuous situations. Society will be be better served if we apply correct modes of thinking even then, so we get it right when it really does matter. It takes practice. And I think it's worth the trouble to make an issue out of it. Sorry, just how I am. And BTW, I would say your blind certainty thing applies to you, not I. Belief in anecdotes, and even personal experience, is blind, or at best near-sighted. Acceptance of the best scientific evidence we have is how we see as clearly as we possibly can.

Well, we've had extensive discussion about this already in this thread, but apparently no change of minds or hearts. The fact remains that, to my knowledge, there has never been a correctly-designed (i.e. double blind etc) test that has shown that even people who absolutely believe they are affected by MSG can actually tell, or show any effect, when they have ingested it (aside from making things taste better). Here's some comment from the Mythbuster guys on the subject; I don't know how scientifically reliable their stuff is, but in this case at least they're right. Here are the results of a far more scientifically rigorous study that reached the same conclusion. Here is meta-analysis that reached the same conclusion. Bottom line remains the same. There is no proof, just anecdotes. Not valid. Put more bluntly, it's a myth. Chang is right. I feel like I've become the board's bète noire on this topic! (others too, no doubt).

There is a terrific and definitive book on this subject written by George Ordish, called "The Great Wine Blight." I've mentioned it here before, and it is listed in the biblio section of Wikipedia article linked above. For anyone who wants to know everything there is to know on the subject, it is a must read.

This has to stop. I will say that, with regard to the cutting boards, my point was that plastic is not harmful IF YOU RUN IT THROUGH THE DW AND STERILIZE IT. You can't run wood boards though the DW. That's why plastic is cleaner. Did any of the studies you cite swab plastic boards AFTER THEY WENT THROUGH THE DW and were STERILIZED. As to my lack of cites, you didn't offer a single cite in your 4:51 post, so I decided two could play that game. Don't criticize me for doing what you do. If you can't find the cite for the Indian farmer study I mentioned, your Google skills must be severely lacking. I found it on the first page when I did my Google. So don't criticize me for "not having" skill you manifestly lack yourself. The Hindustan Times and the Economic Times of India do not constitute scientific anything. I never commented on the issue of yields. Only suicides. The annual total suicide count, juxtaposed with the timing of the intro of GMO, is pretty strong evidence that the claims about suicide are bunk. You ignored that. I assure you I do not have a "pro" agribusiness bias. To the contrary. But I am a skeptic. And the "evidence" that is thrown around in the GMO discussion is wide open to skeptical thinking, and that includes the so-called scientific evidence, which if you looked at it with an open mind rather than a made-up mind as you do you might possibly see as well. BTW, unlike most everybody, I actually did a little studying of genetics in university, and what I learned there gives me I think pretty firm ground in my non-fear of genetic engineering. As to my analytical ability and understanding of science, which you have impuned, I hate to bring this up and seldom do, but it so happens I possess a PhD from a major (Ivy league) university. I assure you I understand and am quite comfortable with the process of science, and even statistical analysis. And I know much "science"is actually bunk, and sometimes one can, by approaching with skepticism, see it. And to me, a great deal of the "science" that has been used to support anti_GMO claims, of the kind you are citing, is in fact bunk. But sorry, I just don't have the time to continually research and counter your confirmation-biased postings. This has got to stop somewhere and that's the last I'll be posting on this. You can work yourself into a frenzy and flame me all you want. I'm done.

Not sure what you're saying about cutting boards. But even if you cut a groove a mile deep in a plastic board but wash it in the sanitizing DW at the end of the day as one should, bacterial growth is going to be zapped. You can't do that with a wood board. So as far as I'm concerned plastic wins. Glad we agree on MSG. Personally I don't use it either (that has nothing to do with my point). I'm a big fish sauce man myself -- use it in just about everything. Now then, GMO's. I'm familiar with all the arguments you raised. Frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination to run down each, but I did take a quick closer look at a couple of them. Regarding Indian farmers, not only is there little if any scientific support for that one, it was debunked by International Food Policy Research Institute which BTW is not meaningfully funded by industry. If you don't believe them, just take a look at the annual number of suicides by farmers in India; you will find the number was about 11,000 in 1995 rising to about 17,000 in 2002, which as you must know was the year Monsanto introduced GM cotton seeds in India. The annual number of suicides stabilized about then and remains at that level. Given that, how can the introduction of GMO's that year be the cause of all those suicides?. To the contrary, the numbers suggest there is no cause and effect at all. Regarding butterflies, the scientific evidence is that GMO's have no direct effect. They have been in decline for a very long time, and the main problem recently is the loss of their food source, milkweed, and the best evidence is that that in turn was caused not by GMO's but by the fact that farmer's have been planting corn fence to fence because of ethanol, and turned all the fields where it used to grow into (marginally) productive land to grow still more corn. So your "scientific" support basically is somewhere between weak and non-existent. My original point stands, namely that you too are basing your policy prescriptions fundamentally on ideology not science. Your napalm was a dud.

I thought you were keeping the cutting boards segregated (by color). I believe that's also in the regs. It shouldn't be necessary to run them through every half hour. I don't reject the science. I know door handles are cleaner than lots of other things. BUT, if I touch those other things I'm going to wash my hands anyway before I leave the rest room. Unfortunately that by definition is not possible with regard to the the handle on the exit door. Thus I'd rather not touch it. The studies don't note this simple fact. With regard to settled science, I totally agree with you. That said, I note that you, coming at this from a progressive perspective, have pointed out certain issues where conservatives go wrong. But you haven't noted certain points where progressives, including you, also reject science. For example, like it or not there has never been a statistically valid study done that found that anyone could detect the presence of MSG in foods, including persons who totally believe it has dire effects on them. The MSG thing amounts to mass hysteria. On a more significant issue, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows there are no dangers associated directly with GMO's. I agree that some corporations have used GMO's in ways that may be economically repugnant to some, and/or there may be health effects derived not from the GMO's themselves but other matters (e.g. pesticide use), but that doesn't alter the scientific fact, whether you yourself accept it or not, that gene-splicing itself is not harmful. It just flat isn't, as numerous recognized independent, non-corporate-funded scientific associations and groups have unequivocally pointed out. But you and many others continue to believe and say it does. So is this accepting of the valid scientific evidence? Note -- I agree you have every right to not eat GMO's if you choose not to, but you have no scientific basis or right to tell anyone they will be harmed if they do. Maybe you shouldn't make so much fun of the flat-earthers. People who live in glass houses.......

What if you routinely wash your plastic boards in the DW? I believe commercial ones are rated as commercial dishwasher safe. You can't do that with a wooden board. (At home, I keep several small plastic boards and simply put them in the DW immediately after any use that might be questionable, eg cutting raw eat, and everything that's been used for anything goes in at the end of the day -- no muss, no fuss, and yes I use the sterilization cycle on my NSF rated DW). Agree about plastic gloves. Worse, often in the dentist office I see them put on the gloves then grab things (e.g. the handle for the light) that have no obvious protection from the last patient (admittedly nowadays they often have a little plastic bag over those handles -- one can only hope it was changed from the last patient). Full disclosure -- I got the worst sore throat of my life from a visit to a dirty dental office. I also try never ever to touch a public restroom door handle with bare hands. YMMV. I wouldn't be too trusting of the results of those "studies." As I mentioned upthread, my sister used to do those studies for a living. The problem is that 99.5% of the time there is no problem with, e.g. the door handle; it's the other .5%, that the study didn't happen to pick up, where the problem lurks. Some things in life I'd rather not take the risk.

- I also don't care if my hands are 100% dry; just close enough. That's my beef with electric dryers. I want really dry hands, with all the moisture gone from between the fingers and so on. Electrics just don't do it. They also aren't really more sanitary -- my sister, who is a food service sanitation professional, comments that all they to is "blow the germs around." I understand the owners point of view -- paper is expensive and a hassle. But I mentally downgrade places that only have electrics. Too much like rest stops and fast food places. In fact, when I'm in a fast food place or a gas station on the interstate, I'm in the habit of taking some napkins from the self-serve food service island into the rest room with me to be sure I have paper to dry with. Better than grabbing toilet paper, the other option.

Several weeks ago I spotted a couple of articles that promised to uncover a few more candidates for inclusion in our old New York restaurant list, so I decided to follow up. One was an article in the NYT where they asked readers to comment on their favorite old places. Another was an article by Robert Sietsema in which he named numerous old restaurants he deems worthy of protection from increasing real estate prices and rents. There are also several blogs, and an on-going series of articles in Eater. Little did I realize what I had bitten off. Starting with the above, and with lots of link-following on Google, yields a cornucopia of historic restaurants in New York that were not yet on our list. Many of them are famous, but nobody had posted them yet. Three are on the James Beard "America's Classics" list (Mario's, 2nd Ave. Deli, and Totonno's). Many are neighborhood places, but to me no less worthy of being noted. I more-or-less arbitrarily decided to stop at 50 years ago. I'm sure we've more than just scratched the surface, but I'm equally sure there are many more. Nonetheless I'm pretty certain there is no more comprehensive such list anywhere than in this thread, which is particularly interesting since it appears in a DC-centric web site. Thank you Don for starting this. Here is the list of additions, arranged by age. I have tried to post at least two links for each in case anyone is interested in following up. Killmeyers Old Bavarian Inn: 1855 (approx.) [i'm using 1859 per this article - DR] http://www.killmeyers.com/about-killmeyers/ "Killmeyer's Old Bavaria Inn" on nymag.com Traditional German in Staten Island. Beer garden. Great portions of Bavarian food, oompah bands, and dozens of beers. Landmark Tavern: 1868 http://www.thelandmarktavern.com/ http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/landmark-tavern/ Originally a Hudson River dockworkers' place in Hell's Kitchen; now updated as a gastropub. Brooklyn Inn: 1875 (approx.) http://nymag.com/listings/bar/brooklyn_inn00/ Elaborate carved wood everywhere, including the immense, 140 year old German hand-carved bar. Sunny's Bar: 1890 http://www.sunnysredhook.com/ http://nymag.com/listings/bar/sunnys/ A beloved Red Hook institution. Originally a dockworkers bar. Severely damaged by Sandy, but now restored. Among Time Out's 50 best NY bars. Old Town Bar: 1892 http://www.oldtownbar.com/visit.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Town_Bar_and_Restaurant Nearly everything is original; the marble and mahogany bar is 55 feet long. Huge old-style urinals. The dumbwaiters are New York's oldest active restaurant conveyers. Used as setting for several movies and TV shows -- Madonna strutted the length of the bar in her "Bad Girl" video. Ferrara Bakery and Cafe: 1892 http://www.ferraracafe.com/about/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrara_Bakery_and_Cafe Claims to be America's oldest espresso bar. Still in the founder's family. Enrico Caruso was a frequent visitor, and many in opera have followed since. Located in the heart of Little Italy. Veniero's Paticceria and Caffe: 1894 http://venierospastry.com/about.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totonno's http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/totonno-pizzeria-napolitano/ Coal oven pizza in Coney Island. A pizza classic. Stays open until the dough runs out. Serves by the whole pie only. On the James Beard "America's Classics" list. Lexington Candy Shop: 1925 http://www.lexingtoncandyshop.net/content/lexington-candy-shops-history http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/lexington-candy-shop/ Upper East Side luncheonette. Often described as entering a time warp. A real soda fountain; Cokes made on-the-spot with syrup and a squirt of seltzer. Sardi's: 1927 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganaro's Manganaro's was actually two restaurants established by the same family, the original Manganaro's Grosseria (1893) and Manganaro's Hero Boy which was a spin-off next door. The original Grosseria may have invented, and certainly figured prominently in developing and introducing, the hero sandwich. They then invented the 6-foot hero (1955) which was so successful that Hero Boy was established next door to focus on it. Tony Bourdain featured Grosseria on No Reservations. It closed in 2012. Hero Boy is still in operation, but due to a change in the ownership of its building its future is unclear. Stay tuned. Forlini's: 1956 http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/08/this_is_the_latest_edition.php Basic Italian. Located just across the street from the Manhattan Criminal Courts Building which provides most of its business. Not great, but good enough for a judge's lunch, not to mention the jury and the lawyers. Gem Spa: 1957 (but direct roots back to the 1920's) http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com/2012/02/gem-spa-not-closed.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gem_Spa (Previously posted but not yet entered into the summary at the top of the thread) The quintessential egg cream place in the East Village. Claims to have invented that NY treat. Theirs is certainly one of the best and favorites. Known as a newsstand that carried all the underground publications, it became a hangout for the A-list beatniks (Ginsberg, Kerouac) and later the hippies/radicals each in their respective eras. Tony's di Napoli: 1959 http://www.tonysnyc.com/ http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/tonys_di_napoli02/ In Times Square and the Upper East Side. Southern Italian served family style, i.e. on large platters with enough for 2 or 3 or more. Everybody seems to like it. Famous Oyster Bar: 1959 (Closed Jan 26, 2014) http://ny.eater.com/archives/2014/01/the_oyster_bar.php Famed for its kitschy nautical-themed decor. Another casualty of real estate price hikes. Losner's Deli: 1960 http://ny.eater.com/archives/2012/11/loesers_who_goes_there.php http://www.backinthebronx.com/story71.php One of two remaining Kosher deli's in the Bronx (Liebman's (1953) being the other). Chez Napoleon: 1960 http://www.cheznapoleon.com/index2.html http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/chez-napoleon/ Another time-warp French restaurant, where octogenarian Grand-mere' Marguerite is said to literally still do the cooking, which authentically matches that found in a 60's bistro just about anywhere in France. Pastrami Queen: 1961 http://www.nytimes.com/restaurants/1002207992015/pastrami-queen/details.html Started out in Kew Gardens Queens as Pastrami King, where it was a hangout for Queens politicians and courthouse folks; after the courts moved away and took much of the business, it had a sex change operation and moved to the East Side of Manhattan in 1998. Still serving very good pastrami. Sylvia's: 1962 http://sylviasrestaurant.com/ Le Périgord: 1964 <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia" s_restaurant_of_harlem"="">http://www.leperigord.com/about-le-perigord/ http://www.nytimes.com/restaurants/1002207988938/le-perigord/details.html One of the few remaining old school haut-cuisine French warhorses, in mid-town. Captains in tuxes. Menu from the era when it opened. Custom and ritual, of the sort appreciated by the gray-haired clientele. The place to go when you want to experience quenelles of pike in lobster sauce and floating island, while you still can. The Donut Pub: 1964 http://www.donutpub.com/ http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/donut-pub/ Donuts from a pre-Dunkin era on 14th St. Famed for its "wall of donuts," including just about every variety you can imagine.

I should think the Brown Hotel in Louisville, where the hot brown sandwich was invented and the definitive version is served, would qualify. The hot brown is certainly the iconic sandwich, even dish, of Louisville. While we're in Kentucky, the Moonlight BBQ in Owensboro could be added to the list [even tho some (myself included) would say Old Hickory, while less-known, has better Q]. Surely Arthur Bryant's in Kansas City, after my friend Calvin Trillin, a KC native, made it famous by deeming it "the best restaurant in the world.".

As a result of all this I just went ahead and applied for the Fidelity Amex Card. That one IS a flat 2% and they simply automatically deposit the $ in your Fidelity account which I have one of anyway. So I can use it for most things and continue to use Discover when they have the 5% deal on things I was going to buy anyway. Considering your restaurant eating habits, I'd think the Discover would be a good deal for you at least 3 months of the year. With regard to airline clubs, For me personally, I've had a lifetime membership in the United Club for nearly 30 years, so that takes care of that. When I bought it it was Eastern, then it passed to Continental and now United. I paid $500 at the time -- now I think it's several thousand if they even offer it any longer. You can't beat spending time in an airport club when you consider the alternative, but whether it's worth the cost depends on you and your travel habits, and that would apply whether you buy it directly or get access some other way, e.g. through a credit card deal.

Apologies: This thread caused me to look further into this and I discovered that my remarks above about Discover are wrong. There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that the across-the-board cash back is now only 1%. The good news is that there are 5% cash back deals for certain expenditures at certain times, though with a capped amount. Notably for Rocks and readers of DR.com this includes restaurants for three months each year, but unfortunately that is Jan-Mar so it's too late to get on the train this year. Here is more info. You have to sign up each time, but they make that a simple click. Keep in mind that Discover is a no-annual-fee card, which is good. They also have recently started to give you your FICO score on your monthly statement, which is nice. I have seldom found a restaurant lately that didn't take the card. Here and here is more info on good cash back cards.

Interesting. I lived in Geneva many years ago and that's where/why I dropped my AMEX. At the time I had both AMEX and Diners Club. Amex insisted that I convert my account to a card serviced out of the UK, which meant there would be no protection against liability if somebody stole the card and used it (such protection is the law in the US). I told them what they could do with their card. Diners was happy to continue to handle my account from the US, with the US rules, so I kept it and still have it. The other great thing about Diners (which is now charged as a Mastercard so can be used anywhere) is that it is the only card I know of that offers primary rental car insurance, which means if you have an accident you don't have to get your own insurance company involved nor pay any deductible, which can be a big money saver. I once had a tiny scratch in the UK and was assessed over $500 by Hertz, but got it back due to the primary insurance. They also have a point-per-dollar program, but I've never redeemed anything except the annual membership fee ($95), so I really don't know how good it is otherwise. I don't rent cars much any more so may drop the card, but haven't yet. However I have now switched to Discover as my primary card, and lately have been billing $5k+ a month on it. It's accepted nearly everywhere that Visa/MC is. They give a simple 2% cash back, so that's $100/month or more, in essence, cash in my pocket. That's better for me than any other so-called perk; being retired, upgrades and free hotel rooms are not of much interest. There are a few other cards that have similar programs, e.g. Fidelity has one. Personally, that makes the most sense to me. Just give me the cash, baby!

Including our own Dean Gold!

I once tried to get a thread going called "Tell us your backstory, for all of us to tell each other about themselves, but it didn't get much traction. Maybe as part of a real name initiative, or as a substitute, another way could be found to do something similar. Speaking for me, I'd certainly be interested in knowing a little more about those here whom in most cases I know only from their handles. Some back story on the avatars might also be interesting. P.S. This is my 1000th post.

Your right (sorry I couldn't help myself). But while my comment was indeed snarky, I think little indicators like that do help one get a handle on what one is dealing with, and having such information is valid and useful and should not be ignored. In this case it does help underline that some folks (certainly not all, but perhaps the average) who hold antiscientific views of creation may be less educated that those who adhere to scientific explanations. This may be due to differences in inherent ability or educational opportunity or both. Your suggestion about how to proceed is, nevertheless, a good one.

It would appear that the problem did not end in the 80's, and is still very much with us. Bill Nye tried to attack it in his recent debate with Ken Ham, but a cursory glance at the comments seen in the press shows that the science side still needs to work on its delivery. Google "Bill Nye Ken Ham debate." At least one comment strongly suggests science took a hit. Here is a link that demonstrates what the scientific community is up against. The confusion between "there" and "their" in a couple of the questions does perhaps reveal something about the intellectual ability of the creationists (yes, snarky comment).

Here is a link to a NYT science section article this week about Alan Alda that very much goes to this issue.

OTOH, Bern's is on the list of semi-finalists for this year's Beard outstanding restaurant award. I would think it wouldn't be too hard to talk a bunch of colleagues into going there, assuming they are men. Bern's, I would say, is a guy type of place.