The Food Network

[Pat]

My wife and I saw the same ad the other night and had a similar reaction. Our jaws dropped and we looked at each other in amazement. Did you also notice the soft focus and washed out colors of the commercial, as though it were a nostalgic look back at the nuclear family of the 1950s who ate their meals together? I suppose such a commercial is an indication that, despite "The United States of Arugula" and all the progress made in the past 50 years, there remains a great mass of the culinarily unwashed in this country. (Or is that what companies like KFC just want us to think?)

Once they'd hooked me in and I looked at the tv, I did notice the wholesome nostalgia visuals. It reminded me of one of the Church of the Latter Day Saints commercials, which focus on parents spending quality time with their children. I also thought I picked up the subtext: "I'm a better mom than you are because my family eats dinner together."

[Banco]

That's fine too. What's the big deal?

No big deal. I was simply pointing out the distinction between promoting family togetherness and using an image of family togetherness to promote a product. Your post ignored that distinction.

[porcupine]

Most people not have the time to have a "well rounded" family meal on most nights.

If that is true, then "most people" have their priorities messed up.

[DLB]

If that is true, then "most people" have their priorities messed up.

It's hard to do this every night if you are not getting home from work until 7:30pm. I think most people would want to sit down to dinner every night, but if both parents are working it's not that easy.

[porcupine]

It's hard to do this every night if you are not getting home from work until 7:30pm. I think most people would want to sit down to dinner every night, but if both parents are working it's not that easy.

I don't want to start a flame war here, so I will try to phrase my answer in such a way as to promote thoughtful discussion.

The top priority of people who choose to be parents should be: to be good parents, which for the sake of argument I'll define this way: providing shelter, nutrition, socialization, and education to their children. Two of these vital needs can be accomplished at mealtime. Parents who can't find the time to properly feed and socialize their children need to jettison something from their (or their childrens') schedules and make the time.

expecting the Rocks frowny face at any time now,

[CrescentFresh]

I posted about this on the Central thread, but I suppose this is relevant as well. Was eating at Central last night and about 10 minutes into our meal, Giada De Laurentiis and a friend were seated at the table directly next to us. I had my back to them so I couldn't spy on what she was eating, but it was definitely her. A friend also knows an insider at the White House that had mentioned Giada was in town for something, so it would make sense to be dining only a few blocks from the there.

Just wait 'til mdt hears about this! We should set up some kind of DR-911 wireless alert system for situations like this so when the Giadas, Rachaels, Tonys and others we love and hate show up, we can have an instant flashmob alert sent to all the DR membership. (Except we should leave out some of the members, like that M.D. Chapman guy. He gives me the creeps.)

[DLB]

I don't want to start a flame war here, so I will try to phrase my answer in such a way as to promote thoughtful discussion.

The top priority of people who choose to be parents should be: to be good parents, which for the sake of argument I'll define this way: providing shelter, nutrition, socialization, and education to their children. Two of these vital needs can be accomplished at mealtime. Parents who can't find the time to properly feed and socialize their children need to jettison something from their (or their childrens') schedules and make the time.

expecting the Rocks frowny face at any time now,

I don't have any kids, but my guess is that that's it tough to have a sit down meal every single night when both parents are working. I have friends who do have kids, and they tell me it's easier said than done. I am sure most parents do thier past to provide whatever is needed to their kids, so let's not point fingers.

[JPW]

I don't have any kids, but my guess is that that's it tough to have a sit down meal every single night when both parents are working. I have friends who do have kids, and they tell me it's easier said than done. I am sure most parents do thier past to provide whatever is needed to their kids, so let's not point fingers.

As part of a DI(one)K (dual income one kid) family I have to say that, as is the case with just about anything, it's all a matter of priority. It's important to me and so it happens. Certainly there are nights when one or the other of us goes out with the cretins fine people who inhabit this board, but every night around 7:30 the Peanut sits down with us for dinner. (Ducking brickbats in advance) As our dear Ms. Ray shows, it's not that hard to get a well-rounded meal on the table in 30 minutes.

The whole problem with the ad is that it is playing on the idea that families NEVER sit down to dinner. I disagree completely that they are promoting the idea that families should sit down to dinner. By presenting as such an oddity, what they really are saying is, "look at those freaks eating together."

I'm not even going to get into the appropriateness of that meal being a tub o' KFC.

[DLB]

As part of a DI(one)K (dual income one kid) family I have to say that, as is the case with just about anything, it's all a matter of priority. It's important to me and so it happens. Certainly there are nights when one or the other of us goes out with the cretins fine people who inhabit this board, but every night around 7:30 the Peanut sits down with us for dinner. (Ducking brickbats in advance) As our dear Ms. Ray shows, it's not that hard to get a well-rounded meal on the table in 30 minutes.

The whole problem with the ad is that it is playing on the idea that families NEVER sit down to dinner. I disagree completely that they are promoting the idea that families should sit down to dinner. By presenting as such an oddity, what they really are saying is, "look at those freaks eating together."

I'm not even going to get into the appropriateness of that meal being a tub o' KFC.

I agree that it's not hard for some people to put a meal on the table in 30min, however there are some parents who do not have the luxury of being home at 7:30pm every night. It really is an oddity for families to sit down and eat together everynight. It's sad but true for most working people.

[porcupine]

I don't have any kids, but my guess is that that's it tough to have a sit down meal every single night when both parents are working. I have friends who do have kids, and they tell me it's easier said than done. I am sure most parents do thier past to provide whatever is needed to their kids, so let's not point fingers.

Nope, no finger pointing. Just friendly discussion. And I agree: it is easier said than done.

[JPW]

I agree that it's not hard for some people to put a meal on the table in 30min, however there are some parents who do not have the luxury of being home at 7:30pm every night. It really is an oddity for families to sit down and eat together everynight. It's sad but true for most working people.

I think that "working people" is a construction that holds a different meaning than what is presented in the ad. The people in the ad aren't working the midnight shift at 7-11.

Let's go for suburban yuppies instead. Being one myself and generally having neighbors that are the same, I see very few that are not all home by 7:30 most nights. I'll try to find some average arrival at home times if you would like. I would still hold that the lack of eating regularly together as a family for the target audience of that ad has entirely more with the lack of desire to do so than the inability to do so. And to me, that is the shame.

[mdt]

Just wait 'til mdt hears about this! We should set up some kind of DR-911 wireless alert system for situations like this so when the Giadas, Rachaels, Tonys and others we love and hate show up, we can have an instant flashmob alert sent to all the DR membership. (Except we should leave out some of the members, like that M.D. Chapman guy. He gives me the creeps.)

Yes a DR-911 for these type of things is a great idea! Unfortunately I was 2500 miles away in LA, so it would not have helped me in this case.

Mini-review. In-n-Out...So-F'n-What?

[DLB]

I think that "working people" is a construction that holds a different meaning than what is presented in the ad. The people in the ad aren't working the midnight shift at 7-11.

Let's go for suburban yuppies instead. Being one myself and generally having neighbors that are the same, I see very few that are not all home by 7:30 most nights. I'll try to find some average arrival at home times if you would like. I would still hold that the lack of eating regularly together as a family for the target audience of that ad has entirely more with the lack of desire to do so than the inability to do so. And to me, that is the shame.

I would not call my self a yuppie but I do live in the suburbs. My wife and I are lucky if we get home by 7:30 on most nights, and on most nights the blue line is still pretty packed at 6:30 or 7 at night.. The DC area is very different from most of the country, as most people tend to work over 30 miles from home. Maybe the target audience is the middle America house wife. By the way, what the hell is a yuppie? Who goes around calling themself a yuppie?

[JPW]

I would not call my self a yuppie but I do live in the suburbs. My wife and I are lucky if we get home by 7:30 on most nights, and on most nights the blue line is still pretty packed at 6:30 or 7 at night.. The DC area is very different from most of the country, as most people tend to work over 30 miles from home. Maybe the target audience is the middle America house wife. By the way, what the hell is a yuppie? Who goes around calling themself a yuppie?

Wow, not so veiled insults. You seem to be very consistent in your use of them in your posts.

yuppie - a definition for you.

So our personal experiences differ, but in your post you admit directly that DC is an outlier. The point stands

[DLB]

Wow, not so veiled insults. You seem to be very consistent in your use of them in your posts.

yuppie - a definition for you.

So our personal experiences differ, but in your post you admit directly that DC is an outlier. The point stands

My bad man, that was the wine talking. I usually don't insult people in my posts. This buppie from Alexandria is above that .

[JPW]

My bad man, that was the wine talking. I usually don't insult people in my posts. This buppie from Alexandria is above that .

No problem. Believe me, I speak from experience when I say that I know where you're coming from.

[Barbara]

As someone with a non-working-outside-the-home mother and a father who worked "regular" hours, I know what it means to eat dinner EVERY night with the family. With two siblings, we were assigned weekly tasks regarding said dinner: One of us put away the leftovers and rinsed the dishes, another washed said dishes by hand (we didn't have an electric dishwasher until MUCH later), and the third dried the dishes and put them away. MOST of the time, we all looked forward to whatever my mother had cooked and sitting down together. It was also where we learned our table manners. This became important because my father was in the Army and we moved frequently, which meant eating all of our meals in restaurants while we were on the road and HAD to behave in such places. I could go on and on about living just across the Bay from San Francisco in the 50's and eating in some really SWELL places, but that would be boring so I won't.

My father was such a congenial man, we all looked forward to our time with him, at least when we were little. Later, during the 60's, things got kinda tense. Nevertheless, both Dame Edna and I grew up in similar circumstances and we both eat our dinners together (except when there is a Girl's Night Out--you know who you are). We take turns cooking, but we talk over the news of the day. People who don't grow up with this are missing out on something really fundamental.

Which is why I am SO in favor of workplaces which are flexible enough to allow families to do this on a daily basis.

[Banco]

...People who don't grow up with this are missing out on something really fundamental.

Which is why I am SO in favor of workplaces which are flexible enough to allow families to do this on a daily basis.

Well said. There also comes a point when one has to stop pointing fingers at the parents, for whom double income is sometimes the only way to afford the exorbitantly inflated price of a college education, and start questioning the integrity of a system that leaves them with such little leisure time while prattling on about "family values."

[Heather]

People who don't grow up with this are missing out on something really fundamental.

Sure, and we eat dinner with our kids just about every night. But am I allowed to confess that I don't always enjoy it? We usually wind up functioning as a bizarre combination of Miss Manners and a hockey referee during the meal. Plus, we'd really prefer to eat later than 6, but can't get our kids on a later schedule. We are thinking of feeding the kids (sitting and talking with them during their meal), then having dinner after they go to bed a few nights a week. Or getting them a governess that will feed them in the nursery, like in a 19th century novel.

Just a little BTDT perpective.

[DLB]

Well said. There also comes a point when one has to stop pointing fingers at the parents, for whom double income is sometimes the only way to afford the exorbitantly inflated price of a college education, and start questioning the integrity of a system that leaves them with such little leisure time while prattling on about "family values."

Amen brother! I agreee with this 100%. There is really no way to make in this area without two incomes.

[Waitman]

Sure, and we eat dinner with our kids just about every night. But am I allowed to confess that I don't always enjoy it? We usually wind up functioning as a bizarre combination of Miss Manners and a hockey referee during the meal. Plus, we'd really prefer to eat later than 6, but can't get our kids on a later schedule. We are thinking of feeding the kids (sitting and talking with them during their meal), then having dinner after they go to bed a few nights a week. Or getting them a governess that will feed them in the nursery, like in a 19th century novel.

Just a little BTDT perpective.

Oh, dinner when my kids were your age was not always a joy. It's takes a long time to teach the stubborn punks decent manners and the urge to throttle whiny 8-year-old who sneers at something you or your spouse spent hours over is sometimes almost overwhelming.

[Barbara]

Sure, and we eat dinner with our kids just about every night. But am I allowed to confess that I don't always enjoy it? We usually wind up functioning as a bizarre combination of Miss Manners and a hockey referee during the meal.

It's OK--I won't tell. Although I wonder if this isn't EXACTLY the reason so many people manage to avoid the nightly "family" dinner.

[Banco]

Sure, and we eat dinner with our kids just about every night. But am I allowed to confess that I don't always enjoy it? We usually wind up functioning as a bizarre combination of Miss Manners and a hockey referee during the meal.

This thread frayed well beyond "The Food Network" long ago, but what the hell.

Yes, ducking from atomized food while trying to preempt severe steak knife injuries to your one-year-old is a daunting task. But what I find even more difficult is when a friend of my son's comes over who obviously has not been exposed to the socialization process Barbara has described, asks where the chicken strips are, whines about anything with a natural color to it, and eats with his fingers. Then I really have to contain my inner petit bourgeois asshole--though the wine infused, apoplectic flush in my face probably betrays me to all.

[Waitman]

Sure, and we eat dinner with our kids just about every night. But am I allowed to confess that I don't always enjoy it? We usually wind up functioning as a bizarre combination of Miss Manners and a hockey referee during the meal. Plus, we'd really prefer to eat later than 6, but can't get our kids on a later schedule. We are thinking of feeding the kids (sitting and talking with them during their meal), then having dinner after they go to bed a few nights a week. Or getting them a governess that will feed them in the nursery, like in a 19th century novel.

Just a little BTDT perpective.

It's OK--I won't tell. Although I wonder if this isn't EXACTLY the reason so many people manage to avoid the nightly "family" dinner.

It's too bad when people give up, though. Because once you finally break the little bastard in to where they're almost civilized, there's little more delightful than a looong dinner with the family with candlight and wine. Makes old dad's heart feel good, even if the he has to sit through the occasional fart joke.

[Heather]

See, I am all for the 19th century model. Let the servants beat manners into them until they're about 16 or so and can make conversation.

Maybe these posts should all go in separate "family dining" thread?

[Banco]

...there's little more delightful than a looong dinner with the family with candlight and wine. Makes old dad's heart feel good, even if the he has to sit through the occasional fart joke.

That's a nice image (sans fart joke of course) to keep in mind as we struggle onward.

[CrescentFresh]

This thread frayed well beyond "The Food Network" long ago, but what the hell.

I wouldn't sweat it. After all, the whole damned thread was frayed from the first post!

[DanCole42]

I blame a system where work is a higher priority to some people than their lives, but I don't blame the people - I blame the system.

Work-life balance is not a virtue in corporate America.

The idea that some things may be equally (and god forbid MORE) important than squeezing your ass into a chair for 8+ hours a day is a vile imprecation.

Too even utter that, maybe, you'd like to get home in time to have dinner with your kids makes you "not a team player," an "obstacle to positive market growth," and "that guy."

People should not be made to feel ashamed of leaving work at a reasonable hour. People should not be ostracized by corporate shills because they want to take a phone call from their son or daughter during "normal business hours."

Bravo, a hearty bravo to companies like Best Buy that grant 100% flexible working hours, so that a man can see a movie at two with his girlfriend, or leave a little early on Wednesdays to make his kid's soccer practice, or, because all work's been done for the week and playing Minesweeper doesn't help the company, going grocery shopping at three on a Friday.

It is a laughable anachronism that the crusty, dry old men at the top think that a warm body in a chair from nine to five equals productivity.

BRAVO to companies that value productivity and results over attendance.

What it comes down to is this. 5:30 rolls around. You can stay in your cubicle and finish whatever project it is you're working on, or you can leave and have dinner with your family. You can say "fuck the system," and why not? It's a system where most people "fuck the family."

If you do good works, and if you enjoy what you're doing, well, the system will come around.

Your life is far more important than your work. I don't care what your CEO or department manager has made you think.

And if any of you DO happen to have the rewarding task of managing other people, as I do, then please make it clear to your peons that you want them to feel fulfilled in all aspects of their lives, not just at their jobs. Let it be known that it's okay with you if they want to duck out early, or run to the dentist, or see their kid's school play.

There is a severe happiness shortage in this country, and it's getting worse. Improvement starts with changing the way people think about their obligations to their jobs and to their family. Namely, that no one should feel obligated to EITHER, but rather that we should do our jobs because we want to, and be with our families because we love them. It's up to the bosses of the world to make sure about the first part so people are free to do the second part.

New record set for off-topicness, so, uhhh.... let me just say that this was an entreaty to the bosses at the Food Network! Shame on your for overworking Rachael...

[ol_ironstomach]

BRAVO to companies that value productivity and results over attendance.

You sure you didn't mean to post this in the José Andrés or Five Guys threads?

[mdt]

Give me a fucking break. I have worked at plenty of places where I was able to leave at a decent hour and be home in time to prepare dinner. Was there the occasional time where long hours were required? Sure, but they were the exception and not the norm. If you don't like the job you have or the hours it requires then get a new damn job. Stop blaming the system and take some personal responsibility and change your situation.

And don't get me started on folks that hate their commute cause there is an easy solution to that situation too.

[jpschust]

Give me a fucking break. I have worked at plenty of places where I was able to leave at a decent hour and be home in time to prepare dinner. Was there the occasional time where long hours were required? Sure, but they were the exception and not the norm. If you don't like the job you have or the hours it requires then get a new damn job. Stop blaming the system and take some personal responsibility and change your situation.

And don't get me started on folks that hate their commute cause there is an easy solution to that situation too.

You know what though, some of us have jobs that we do enjoy from time to time and help to pay for a decent lifestyle, but that require us to work long hours that keeps us from preparing dinner. My girlfriend and I regularly go in to work between 7 and 8 in the morning and don't come back until 8-9 at night. Honestly at that point we are both too tired to cook and are happy to go somewhere else to let us sit and relax, spend some time together and pay for someone else to cook for us.

Don't forget, we live in a town with a lot of law firms and I'd venture to say that lawyers make up a decent amount of the DC population- if you are an attorney in a firm and want to make a good living and stay on track for upward movement you need to bill between 2600-3000 hours a year. Assuming you take 2 weeks of vacation a year and work 5 days a week- all prettty decent and fair assumptions- and then add in about 500 hours for non billable work that you have to do (time entry, group meetings, committees that you have to sit on and pro-bono) that means you work about 12-13 hours a day on the low end of things. That's not an unheard of day in the white collar world of working. Don't get me started on if you can't get a white collar job and work 2 blue collar jobs to stay afloat.

Sorry, but your comment was shortsighted at best.

[DanCole42]

Don't forget, we live in a town with a lot of law firms and I'd venture to say that lawyers make up a decent amount of the DC population- if you are an attorney in a firm and want to make a good living and stay on track for upward movement you need to bill between 2600-3000 hours a year. Assuming you take 2 weeks of vacation a year and work 5 days a week- all prettty decent and fair assumptions- and then add in about 500 hours for non billable work that you have to do (time entry, group meetings, committees that you have to sit on and pro-bono) that means you work about 12-13 hours a day on the low end of things.

It is a terrible tragedy that the system requires that level of time commitment, and even more dreadful is that it will likely get worse before it gets better.

[jpschust]

It is a terrible tragedy that the system requires that level of time commitment, and even more dreadful is that it will likely get worse before it gets better.

It's a tradeoff- if you go to a top law school and spend $150k to attend and work your butt off you want to get paid, but if someone is going to pay you for that work then they want your butt in the chair working for them so they can get their money's worth. I'm not sure I'd call it a tragedy, but more an economic reality.

[Waitman]

It's a tradeoff- if you go to a top law school and spend $150k to attend and work your butt off you want to get paid, but if someone is going to pay you for that work then they want your butt in the chair working for them so they can get their money's worth. I'm not sure I'd call it a tragedy, but more an economic reality.

With starting salaries for graduates of top law schools well into six figures, I have little sympathy for people who copmplain about law school tuition or law firm hours. And there are plenty of lawyers in this town who have chosen a path other than pursuing partnership at a major firm. You can tell what people value by the choices they make and to each his own, as long as they admit that Rachael is something of a twit.

I have known workaholics and slackers, the latter usually cook better, the former are more inclined to buy the next round. God love 'em both.

[MBK]

Don't forget, we live in a town with a lot of law firms and I'd venture to say that lawyers make up a decent amount of the DC population- if you are an attorney in a firm and want to make a good living and stay on track for upward movement you need to bill between 2600-3000 hours a year. Assuming you take 2 weeks of vacation a year and work 5 days a week- all prettty decent and fair assumptions- and then add in about 500 hours for non billable work that you have to do (time entry, group meetings, committees that you have to sit on and pro-bono) that means you work about 12-13 hours a day on the low end of things.

Your point is valid, but don't overstate your case. If you're at a firm where 2600-3000 billable hours a year is necessary to stay on track, you may be at the wrong firm. Sure, everyone who chooses the law firm path puts in a year or two like that when things are busy or partnership is right around the corner ... but it truly is not the norm over time, not here in DC anyway.

Which is not to say that life at a law firm is all flowers and candy, don't get me wrong ...

[jpschust]

Your point is valid, but don't overstate your case. If you're at a firm where 2600-3000 billable hours a year is necessary to stay on track, you may be at the wrong firm. Sure, everyone who chooses the law firm path puts in a year or two like that when things are busy or partnership is right around the corner ... but it truly is not the norm over time, not here in DC anyway.

Which is not to say that life at a law firm is all flowers and candy, don't get me wrong ...

2200-2400 is the minimum I've ever seen of billables to stay on track, but the reality is that it has been more like 2600-3000 to stay on track at the tier 1-2 firms. I've worked for 2 of them, my girlfriend works for one of them and I've got friends at others- my numbers aren't that far off even if they were to be off.

[jpschust]

With starting salaries for graduates of top law schools well into six figures, I have little sympathy for people who copmplain about law school tuition or law firm hours. And there are plenty of lawyers in this town who have chosen a path other than pursuing partnership at a major firm. You can tell what people value by the choices they make and to each his own, as long as they admit that Rachael is something of a twit.

I have known workaholics and slackers, the latter usually cook better, the former are more inclined to buy the next round. God love 'em both.

We will agree that Rachael is a twit. I've got no problem with that

[DanCole42]

With starting salaries for graduates of top law schools well into six figures

Six figures you say? I need an application...

With that kind of money, I could BUY someone to stand in for me at family time.

[DLB]

2200-2400 is the minimum I've ever seen of billables to stay on track, but the reality is that it has been more like 2600-3000 to stay on track at the tier 1-2 firms. I've worked for 2 of them, my girlfriend works for one of them and I've got friends at others- my numbers aren't that far off even if they were to be off.

I live with a Lawyer, and 3000 hours are required to meet her goals for this year.

[lackadaisi]

Assuming you take 2 weeks of vacation a year and work 5 days a week- all pretty decent and fair assumptions-

Not fair assumptions at all, especially if you are billing 2600-3000 hours, unless, of course, you are heavily padding your hours.

If you're at a firm where 2600-3000 billable hours a year is necessary to stay on track, you may be at the wrong firm.

True that, especially as that "track" is often stretching to close to 15 years nowadays, with lots of chances to be pushed off throughout.

Give me a fucking break. I have worked at plenty of places where I was able to leave at a decent hour and be home in time to prepare dinner. Was there the occasional time where long hours were required? Sure, but they were the exception and not the norm. If you don't like the job you have or the hours it requires then get a new damn job. Stop blaming the system and take some personal responsibility and change your situation.

And don't get me started on folks that hate their commute cause there is an easy solution to that situation too.

Not everyone has such options. In fact, a large percentage of people do not, especially in this area. But, I do agree that there is no need to pity the large firm lawyers for the hours they work. They are not "stuck." They have options, and if someone chooses to stay at a firm, that is their decision, and they must pay the price that comes with it. And, that price might mean that they don't get to cook as much. But, hopefully, they are not feeding their children KFC every night to deal with it.

[plunk]

2200-2400 is the minimum I've ever seen of billables to stay on track, but the reality is that it has been more like 2600-3000 to stay on track at the tier 1-2 firms. I've worked for 2 of them, my girlfriend works for one of them and I've got friends at others- my numbers aren't that far off even if they were to be off.

Is this what they're requiring now? I'm only a few years out of law school, and though I don't work for a traditional firm, I have plenty of friends who do. The most I've ever heard was maybe 2200. And this was at top notch firms in D.C., Manhattan and Boston. I suppose the minimum billables have been increasing along with the salaries?

[lackadaisi]

Is this what they're requiring now?

Yes, but not officially. 2000 is still standard minimum, but that won't have you staying long.

[jpschust]

Is this what they're requiring now? I'm only a few years out of law school, and though I don't work for a traditional firm, I have plenty of friends who do. The most I've ever heard was maybe 2200. And this was at top notch firms in D.C., Manhattan and Boston. I suppose the minimum billables have been increasing along with the salaries?

Firms are just way tighter now with their bonus structures since we just saw a ton of retroactive pay increases in the marketplace, and the bonus pool is the way to partnership.

Regardless of all of this I think my point is made that it's not just as simple as it is often said to just make time or to change your life around. And Rahcel is still a twit.

[Al Dente]

Rocks must be VERY busy...

[Husband]

I'm a lawyer. Did the big law firm thing for a while. Still have plenty of friends doing the big law firm thing. And I've never heard anything more than 2200 hours billables being expected. I simply don't believe it's possible that anyone can bill more than that and be honest. In fact, I know when they had an associate bill 2400 my second year, they essentially audited him. 2400 billable hours works out to 6.5 billable hours a day every day for a year. You start charging people those kind of hours, people start to realize you are counting the time you are getting coffee and taking a bathroom break. You bill about 2/3 to 3/4 of time you are at the office if you are doing right. If I fonud out the associate working on my account was billing that much, I'd start to look for new representation.

Okay, now that I'm being a contrainian know-it-all lawyer type, what do people think of this new Kitchen Impossible show? I can't decide if I like it or if I'm more just facinated by the sheer volume of food that can be produced in such a short time.

[mdt]

You know what though, some of us have jobs that we do enjoy from time to time and help to pay for a decent lifestyle, but that require us to work long hours that keeps us from preparing dinner. My girlfriend and I regularly go in to work between 7 and 8 in the morning and don't come back until 8-9 at night. Honestly at that point we are both too tired to cook and are happy to go somewhere else to let us sit and relax, spend some time together and pay for someone else to cook for us.

Don't forget, we live in a town with a lot of law firms and I'd venture to say that lawyers make up a decent amount of the DC population- if you are an attorney in a firm and want to make a good living and stay on track for upward movement you need to bill between 2600-3000 hours a year. Assuming you take 2 weeks of vacation a year and work 5 days a week- all prettty decent and fair assumptions- and then add in about 500 hours for non billable work that you have to do (time entry, group meetings, committees that you have to sit on and pro-bono) that means you work about 12-13 hours a day on the low end of things. That's not an unheard of day in the white collar world of working. Don't get me started on if you can't get a white collar job and work 2 blue collar jobs to stay afloat.

Sorry, but your comment was shortsighted at best.

Shortsighted? Bullshit! Read what I wrote. They made the choice to get into that industry and that is exactly what I am talking about, personal responsibility and making choices. Don't blame the system if you go in with blinders on and then complain about the long hours. Many folks have selected jobs that allow them to live the lifestyle that they desire. You choose to work long hours to have the $$$ to live a certain way, great, but don't bitch about it like you had no choice.

[JPW]

Okay, now that I'm being a contrainian know-it-all lawyer type, what do people think of this new Kitchen Impossible show? I can't decide if I like it or if I'm more just facinated by the sheer volume of food that can be produced in such a short time.

I feel the same way. I've seen at least one commercial where the challenge isn't just "feed 300 people in 10 hours", but is (I think) cooking in Colonial Williamsburg. That should answer the question for both of us.

[lackadaisi]

what do people think of this new Kitchen Impossible show?

Haven't ever heard of it. What's the premise?

[jpschust]

Haven't ever heard of it. What's the premise?

basically the host is thrown into a random situation (on a train, on a boat, wherever) and has to prepare service for a ton of people at once using just what he's got around him. very very cool.

[Keithstg]

basically the host is thrown into a random situation (on a train, on a boat, wherever) and has to prepare service for a ton of people at once using just what he's got around him. very very cool.

Interesting show. The first episode was filmed on an Island off the coast of Maine where we have been spending summers for the past 30 years. The Islanders couldn't say enough nice things about the chef. The show was interesting, even if the Food Network ratcheted up the drama levels a bit.