Guest Blogging: A Bourdain Throwdown
NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT..
By Anthony Bourdain

I actually WATCH Food Network now and again, more often than not drawn in
by the progressive horrors on screen. I find myself riveted by its
awfulness, like watching a multi-car accident in slow motion. Mesmerized at
the ascent of the Ready-Made bobblehead personalities, and the not-so-subtle
shunting aside of the Old School chefs, I find myself de-constructing the
not-terrible shows, imagining behind the scenes struggles and frustrations,
and obsessing unhealthily on the Truly Awful ones. Screaming out loud at
Sandra Lee in disbelief as she massacres another dish, then sits grinning,
her face stretched into a terrifying rictus of faux cheer for the final
triumphant presentation. I mourn for Mario..and Alton...Bobby and yes--even
Emeril, nobly holding the fort while the TV empire he helped build crumbles
like undercooked Bundt cake into a goo of Cheez Wiz around him.

Some thoughts on the Newer, Younger, More Male-Oriented, More Dumb-Ass Food
Network:

ALTON BROWN: How did Alton slip inside the wire--and stay there all these
years? He must have something on them. He's smart. You actually learn
something from his commentary. And I'll admit it: I watch and enjoy Iron
Chef America-in all its cheesy glory. Absolutely SHOCKED and thrilled when
guys like Homaru Cantu show up as contestants--and delighted when Mario
wins--again and again, forestalling his secretly long-planned execution. His
commentary is mostly good. And that collar-bone snapping fall off the
motorcycle on Feasting On Asphalt? Good television!

EMERIL: I'm actually grateful when I channel surf across his show. He's
STILL there--the original Behemoth. And I STILL find him unwatchable. As
much mileage as I've gotten over the years, making fun of Emeril; he
deserves a lot more respect than I've given him. He does run a very
successful and very decent restaurant group. He is--in fact--a really nice
guy. And-as much as I hate the show-- compared to the current crop of
culinary non-entities, he looks like Escoffier. He will probably be the last
of the Real Chefs. I'm sure they're growing future replacement options in
petrie dishes somewhere, conducting Top Secret focus groups at suburban
malls with their latest Bright Young Hopeful. I'm just glad he's still
there--a rebuke to the geniuses who brought us such Great Ideas as Dweezil
and Lisa.

BOBBY FLAY: They seem to have noticed Bobby's strong "negatives" among some
viewer responses during focus groups--and decided to respond by subjecting
poor Bobby to THROWDOWN; the object of which is to allow every web-fingered
geek with a backyard grill--or half-mad muffin maker to proclaim, "I beat
Bobby Flay at makin' barbeque!" at the heart-warming end of show--before
returning to tend their meth labs.. I watched poor Bobby battle to a draw
recently in some bogus Southwestern "Chili Face-Off." Now.does ANYONE
actually believe that Bobby Flay can't make a better chili than a
supermarket ground beef bearing amateur? I don't. It's a cruel exercise in
humiliation. A variation on "Dunk Bozo" or "Shoot The Geek," at the
carnival. And whatever I might have thought of Flay's previous TV efforts, I
find the network's misuse of one of their founding chefs to be nauseatingly
cynical. The conspiratorial-minded might be tempted to suspect this as yet
another part of the Secret Plan to rid themselves of the annoyingly big
ticket chefs--by driving Bobby to quit--or insane with misery. He may not be
Mr. Cuddlesworth, but he's a successful businessman and a good chef--and he
doesn't, after all, need this shit.

MARIO!
Oh, Mario! Oh great one! They shut down Molto Mario--only the smartest and
best of the stand-up cooking shows. Is there any more egregiously
under-used, criminally mishandled, dismissively treated chef on television?
Relegated to the circus of Iron Chef America, where--like a great, toothless
lion, fouling his cage, he hangs on--and on--a major draw (and often the
only reason to watch the show). How I would like to see him unchained, free
to make the television shows he's capable of, the Real Mario--in all his
Rabelasian brilliance. How I would love to hear the snapping bones of his
cruel FN ringmasters, crunching between his mighty jaws! Let us see the
cloven hooves beneath those cheery clogs! Let Mario be Mario!

THAT ACE OF CAKES GUY: Hey.He's got talent! And..he seems to be a trained
chef! And he's really making food--and selling it in a real business! I
think.I like it! If I have one reservation, it's that I have no idea if the
stuff actually TASTES good. It LOOKS really creative and quirky--and I'm
interested but.I mean...it's like construction going on over there from what
we're told and shown. One suspects that the producers don't want to waste
valuable time talking about anything so technical as food--on "Food"
Network. I mean...what's in those cakes, beneath the icing and marzipan and
fondant? That said, it's the only "kicky, new, cutting edge, in-your-face"
hopeful they've managed to trot out of any quality in memory. Hope it lasts.
Wait till they try and put the poor ******* on a pony--or do a "Tailgate
Special" with the usual suspects. Or a "Thanksgiving Special" where he has
to sit down with the bobbleheads and pretend to like it. On balance, it's
still probably the best new project they've come up with in a long, long
time.

GIADA: What's going on here!? Giada can actually cook! She was robbed in her
bout versus Rachael Ray on ICA. ROBBED! And Food Net seems more interested
in her enormous head (big head equals big ratings. Really!) and her
cleavage--than the fact that she's likeable, knows what she's doing in an
Italian kitchen--and makes food you'd actually want to eat. The new high
concept Weekend Getaway show is a horrible, tired re-cap of the cheap-ass
"Best Of" and "40 Dollar a Day" formula. Send host to empty restaurant.
Watch them make crappy food for her. Have her take a few lonely, awkward
stabs at the plate, then feign enjoyment with appropriately orgasmic
eye-closing and moaning..Before spitting it out and rushing to the trailer.
Send her to Italy and let her cook. She's good at it.

RACHAEL: Complain all you want. It's like railing against the pounding surf.
She only grows stronger and more powerful. Her ear-shattering tones louder
and louder. We KNOW she can't cook. She shrewdly tells us so. So...what is
she selling us? Really? She's selling us satisfaction, the smug reassurance
that mediocrity is quite enough. She's a friendly, familiar face who appears
regularly on our screens to tell us that "Even your dumb, lazy ass can cook
this!" Wallowing in your own crapulence on your Cheeto-littered couch you
watch her and think, "Hell.I could do that. I ain't gonna.but I could--if I
wanted! Now where's my damn jug a Diet Pepsi?" Where the saintly Julia Child
sought to raise expectations, to enlighten us, make us better--teach us--and
in fact, did, Rachael uses her strange and terrible powers to narcotize her
public with her hypnotic mantra of Yummo and Evoo and Sammys. "You're doing
just fine. You don't even have to chop an onion--you can buy it already
chopped. Aspire to nothing.Just sit there. Have another
Triscuit.Sleep..sleep.."

PAULA DEEN: I'm reluctant to bash what seems to be a nice old lady. Even if
her supporting cast is beginning to look like the Hills Have Eyes--and her
food a True Buffet of Horrors. A recent Hawaii show was indistinguishable
from an early John Waters film. And the food on a par with the last scene of
Pink Flamingos. But I'd like to see her mad. Like her look-alike, Divine in
the classic, "Female Trouble." Paula Deen on a Baltimore Killing Spree would
be something to see. Let her get Rachael in a headlock--and it's all over.

SANDRA LEE: Pure evil. This frightening Hell Spawn of Kathie Lee and Betty
Crocker seems on a mission to kill her fans, one meal at a time. She Must Be
Stopped. Her death-dealing can-opening ways will cut a swath of destruction
through the world if not contained. I would likely be arrested if I
suggested on television that any children watching should promptly go to a
wooded area with a gun and harm themselves. What's the difference between
that and Sandra suggesting we fill our mouths with Ritz Crackers, jam a can
of Cheez Wiz in after and press hard? None that I can see. This is simply
irresponsible programming. Its only possible use might be as a psychological
warfare strategy against the resurgent Taliban--or dangerous insurgent
groups. A large-racked blonde repeatedly urging Afghans and angry Iraqis to
stuff themseles with fatty, processed American foods might be just the
weapon we need to win the war on terror.

AND FINALLY: Some IRON CHEF AMERICA match-ups I'd REALLY like to see:

a.. Mario Batali (with one arm tied behind his back--and drunk) vs. Regina
Schrambling
b.. Michael Ruhlman, swacked on Ripple, vs. John Mariani-- in a
Charcuterie Challenge
c.. Grant Achatz vs. That Guy In Australia Who Ripped off his recipes as
his own
d.. Marco Pierre White vs. Gordon Ramsay
e.. Charlie Trotter vs. Martin Picard (Chicken Livers vs. Foie Gras)
f.. Chris Cosentino, Fergus Henderson, Martin Picard vs. Alain Passard,
Roxanne Klein and Charlie Trotter (Cooked vs. Raw Challenge)
g.. Martha Stewart vs. Rachael Ray (bare knuckle cage match)
h.. Ducasse vs. Robuchon
i.. "Mikey" from Top Chef vs. Sandra Lee

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:46:21 -0500, "Ubiquitous" >
wrote:

>THAT ACE OF CAKES GUY: Hey.He's got talent! And..he seems to be a trained
>chef! And he's really making food--and selling it in a real business! I
>think.I like it! If I have one reservation, it's that I have no idea if the
>stuff actually TASTES good. It LOOKS really creative and quirky--and I'm
>interested but.I mean...it's like construction going on over there from what
>we're told and shown. One suspects that the producers don't want to waste
>valuable time talking about anything so technical as food--on "Food"
>Network. I mean...what's in those cakes, beneath the icing and marzipan and
>fondant? That said, it's the only "kicky, new, cutting edge, in-your-face"
>hopeful they've managed to trot out of any quality in memory. Hope it lasts.
>Wait till they try and put the poor ******* on a pony--or do a "Tailgate
>Special" with the usual suspects. Or a "Thanksgiving Special" where he has
>to sit down with the bobbleheads and pretend to like it. On balance, it's
>still probably the best new project they've come up with in a long, long
>time.
>
This show reminds me of American Hot Rod, where the regulars get an
order to make a car from scratch in a certain amount of time, always
worrying about making the deadline, only to come out with a perfect
product in the end.
As far as how the cakes taste in the end, I'm not a big fan of
fondant, and these guys can't make a cake without it.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:46:21 -0500, "Ubiquitous" >
> wrote:
>
>>THAT ACE OF CAKES GUY: Hey.He's got talent! And..he seems to be a trained
>>chef! And he's really making food--and selling it in a real business! I
>>think.I like it! If I have one reservation, it's that I have no idea if
>>the
>>stuff actually TASTES good. It LOOKS really creative and quirky--and I'm
>>interested but.I mean...it's like construction going on over there from
>>what
>>we're told and shown. One suspects that the producers don't want to waste
>>valuable time talking about anything so technical as food--on "Food"
>>Network. I mean...what's in those cakes, beneath the icing and marzipan
>>and
>>fondant? That said, it's the only "kicky, new, cutting edge, in-your-face"
>>hopeful they've managed to trot out of any quality in memory. Hope it
>>lasts.
>>Wait till they try and put the poor ******* on a pony--or do a "Tailgate
>>Special" with the usual suspects. Or a "Thanksgiving Special" where he has
>>to sit down with the bobbleheads and pretend to like it. On balance, it's
>>still probably the best new project they've come up with in a long, long
>>time.
>
> This show reminds me of American Hot Rod, where the regulars get an
> order to make a car from scratch in a certain amount of time, always
> worrying about making the deadline, only to come out with a perfect
> product in the end.
> As far as how the cakes taste in the end, I'm not a big fan of
> fondant, and these guys can't make a cake without it.

I watched this show once, totally expecting it to reek, but it was
suprisingly good. I suspect that if I watched this open a regular
basis it'll get old REALLY fast, however.

On Feb 13, 6:46 am, "Ubiquitous" > wrote:
> Guest Blogging: A Bourdain Throwdown
> NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT..
> By Anthony Bourdain
>
> I actually WATCH Food Network now and again, more often than not drawn in
> by the progressive horrors on screen. I find myself riveted by its
> awfulness, like watching a multi-car accident in slow motion. Mesmerized at
> the ascent of the Ready-Made bobblehead personalities, and the not-so-subtle
> shunting aside of the Old School chefs, I find myself de-constructing the
> not-terrible shows, imagining behind the scenes struggles and frustrations,
> and obsessing unhealthily on the Truly Awful ones. Screaming out loud at
> Sandra Lee in disbelief as she massacres another dish, then sits grinning,
> her face stretched into a terrifying rictus of faux cheer for the final
> triumphant presentation. I mourn for Mario..and Alton...Bobby and yes--even
> Emeril, nobly holding the fort while the TV empire he helped build crumbles
> like undercooked Bundt cake into a goo of Cheez Wiz around him.
>
I wonder what Bourdain thinks of "Dinner Impossible." I really like
watching this guy with his two "Georges."

Every other comment of Bourdain's, I agree with, wholeheartedly. I
wish he were on ICA once.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:

> Every other comment of Bourdain's, I agree with, wholeheartedly. I
> wish he were on ICA once.

I mentioned in another thread that I think Bourdain was pretty unfair
to the unwitting contestants that get bushwhacked in Throwdown. Most of
these people are NOT random hoosiers, but food professionals or top
amateurs. They have to do into battle with no notice, against a
professional chef who has been preparing specifically for this ahead of
time. Their victories are indeed something to be proud of.

Considering how often Bourdain praises the efforts of local cooks and
small-time food professionals in "No Reservations", this attitude seems
more than a bit hypocritical.





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Randy Johnson wrote:

> I think this characterization is a bit off-base; ... Cult-like rant
> snipped.

Someone contact the RR deprogrammers and have them kidnap this poor soul.


Julia and RR in the same sentence....... my gosh this is scarier than Tom
Cruise talkin' scientology.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Randy Johnson wrote:
>
> > I think this characterization is a bit off-base; ... Cult-like rant
> > snipped.
>
> Someone contact the RR deprogrammers and have them kidnap this poor
> soul.

I tend to agree with him. This RR hating is way overblown and
ridiculous.

Her cooking show really isn't that bad.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Randy Johnson" > wrote in
:

> I think this characterization is a bit off-base; RR could be the Julia
> Child of the "Carside to-go" set. If she inspires one person per week
> to make a 30-minute meal from simple ingredients, she's done their
> family a great service. One less meal of KFC or Applebee's take out
> can't be anything but good for the families of cell-phone wielding,
> SUV "driving", stressed-out wack-o's.

I think I accidentally emailed my response instead of posting:

Some of your points are well-taken. Trust me, I live in a community filled
with woman-of-leisure-soccer-moms who can't be bothered to actually cook,
and getting them off the couch is a good thing. Hell, some of the meals I
make use some convenience ingredients. You could call some of them semi-
homemade - minus the cleavage, slobbering devotion to alcohol, unsanitary
kitchen practices, crap ingredients, tablescapes and seeming disregard for
flavor, texture and nutrition of the food.

Anyhow, RR is an instant tune-out for me. She always has been, even when
she was an unknown newbie on FTV. I think the issue I and so many of the
"bashers" have is that she, Sandra, etc, are dumbing down a network which
once had a greater devotion to the food and less fawning over manufactured
celebrities and their personalities. The example I always think of is Sara
Moulton (sp) - a good many of her dishes were as easy to prepare as any of
the cult of personality's, but she wasn't a bubbly little bobble-head.
Plus, she could...you know....cook. Thus, she is no longer a player at the
Network as far as I can tell.

-Jeff

Default User wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Randy Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I think this characterization is a bit off-base; ... Cult-like rant
>>> snipped.
>>
>> Someone contact the RR deprogrammers and have them kidnap this poor
>> soul.
>
> I tend to agree with him. This RR hating is way overblown and
> ridiculous.

:-) Oh, I don't know. I tend to think the reaction is proportionate to how
much exposure she has.

> Her cooking show really isn't that bad.

Perhaps, but then again she really doesn't have any specific cooking talent
to recommend her show. IOW, any reasonably competent home cook could match
her skill-level. Food Network hired her for whatever they percieve her
hosting talent to be.

I don't think the RR detractors care much one way or the other about her
show. What the detractors fume about is RR. For them, she gets in the way of
her show.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > Her cooking show really isn't that bad.
>
> Perhaps, but then again she really doesn't have any specific cooking
> talent to recommend her show. IOW, any reasonably competent home cook
> could match her skill-level. Food Network hired her for whatever they
> percieve her hosting talent to be.

I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her show. If
she can do it, so can you!

> I don't think the RR detractors care much one way or the other about
> her show. What the detractors fume about is RR. For them, she gets in
> the way of her show.

Which is my point. They hate mannerisms. They hate her expressions.
They hate her laugh. Etc. Etc.

It's not a great show, but it beats Paul Deen's boys driving around the
country being jackasses. For that matter, I'd sooner watch that than
Emeril. He drives me nuts, so I (now this is radical) DON'T WATCH THE
SHOW.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Jeff Edwards wrote:

> I think the issue I and so many of the
> "bashers" have is that she, Sandra, etc, are dumbing down a network which
> once had a greater devotion to the food and less fawning over manufactured
> celebrities and their personalities.

This is a long article, but it pretty much explains the rise, and fall,
of Food Network over the years. Read it and weep.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../061002fa_fact



Dawn

"Randy Johnson" > scripsit in
:

> One less meal of KFC or Applebee's take out can't be anything but
> good for the families of cell-phone wielding, SUV "driving",
> stressed-out wack-o's.

Generalize much?

--

"There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in."

Leonard Cohen, Anthem

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:46:21 -0500, "Ubiquitous" >
wrote:

> Guest Blogging: A Bourdain Throwdown
> NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT..
> By Anthony Bourdain

That Bourdain, he can write. I only disagree with one thing -
Bobby Flay deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

HR

Default User wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>>> Her cooking show really isn't that bad.
>>
>> Perhaps, but then again she really doesn't have any specific cooking
>> talent to recommend her show. IOW, any reasonably competent home cook
>> could match her skill-level. Food Network hired her for whatever they
>> percieve her hosting talent to be.
>
> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her show.
> If she can do it, so can you!

RR dumbs down cooking and seeks the lowest common cooking denominator.
Unlike RR, Julia Child never talked down to her audience and yet was still
able to raise culinary awareness and expectations in meal preparation.

>> I don't think the RR detractors care much one way or the other about
>> her show. What the detractors fume about is RR. For them, she gets in
>> the way of her show.
>
> Which is my point. They hate mannerisms. They hate her expressions.
> They hate her laugh. Etc. Etc.
>
> It's not a great show, but it beats Paul Deen's boys driving around
> the country being jackasses. For that matter, I'd sooner watch that
> than Emeril.

I don't understand why one must like RR in order to NOT like other shows.
The problem with Food Network is that so much of their programming is a redo
of the RR formula, which means that there is a lot of ugly programming. RR
is PART of the larger group of FN programming mediocrity.

>He drives me nuts, so I (now this is radical) DON'T
> WATCH THE SHOW.

I don't. But that doesn't mean that criticism is warranted, and that one
might hope that FN would grow up a bit. Besides, RR has intruded herself
into aspects of life that one cannot avoid. Have a Ritz. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Bugg wrote:
snip
> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her show. If
> she can do it, so can you!
>
snip
> Brian
>
My argument with RR is that she misleads an untutored audience. For
instance. She's always going on about how cooking at home is so much better
for you, less calories, and you can feel good about eating the food. Then
she proceeds to make frozen French fries (no problem there), but she pours
melted butter over them and then covers them with cheese. Now, I'm sorry,
but that isn't the way to "better for you." She's upped the calories and
fats and is now in the same league with the take-out stuff. Or the time she
was making her own "better for you" refried beans from canned beans --
again, no problem. But she went on to say that the store bought refried
beans had bad-for-you lard in them (not necessarily true) and she was going
to make hers better by substituting a quarter pound of bacon chunks. That's
just two examples. But she does it all the time. And her portion control
is way out of whack. If, as you say, she is reaching an audience that needs
to be encouraged to cook, (and I have read that she is extremely popular
with the 25 and under crowd) she needs to teach something good. I don't
mean that she has to teach no-fat or low-carb (which she attempts) and the
like, but truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating.
Janet

"Janet B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
> snip
>> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her show. If
>> she can do it, so can you!
>>
> snip
>> Brian
>>
> My argument with RR is that she misleads an untutored audience. For
> instance. She's always going on about how cooking at home is so much
> better for you, less calories, and you can feel good about eating the
> food. Then she proceeds to make frozen French fries (no problem there),
> but she pours melted butter over them and then covers them with cheese.
> Now, I'm sorry, but that isn't the way to "better for you." She's upped
> the calories and fats and is now in the same league with the take-out
> stuff. Or the time she was making her own "better for you" refried beans
> from canned beans -- again, no problem. But she went on to say that the
> store bought refried beans had bad-for-you lard in them (not necessarily
> true) and she was going to make hers better by substituting a quarter
> pound of bacon chunks. That's just two examples. But she does it all the
> time. And her portion control is way out of whack. If, as you say, she
> is reaching an audience that needs to be encouraged to cook, (and I have
> read that she is extremely popular with the 25 and under crowd) she needs
> to teach something good. I don't mean that she has to teach no-fat or
> low-carb (which she attempts) and the like, but truthfully teach
> responsible cooking and eating.
> Janet
>


Janet, just over half the country is stupid beyond rescue. Someone has to do
a cooking show for them. Relax and let it happen. You can't change it.

On 2007-02-14, Janet B. > wrote:

> like, but truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating.

Get real! No successful cooking show has ever been about either of
those two subjects.

nb

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:00:58 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-14, Janet B. > wrote:
>
>> like, but truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating.
>
>Get real! No successful cooking show has ever been about either of
>those two subjects.
>
>nb

Not even St. Julia?

Christine

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Janet B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Default User" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> snip
>>>> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her
>>>> show. If she can do it, so can you!
>>>>
>>> snip
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>> My argument with RR is that she misleads an untutored audience. For
>>> instance. She's always going on about how cooking at home is so much
>>> better for you, less calories, and you can feel good about eating the
>>> food. Then she proceeds to make frozen French fries (no problem
>>> there), but she pours melted butter over them and then covers them
>>> with cheese. Now, I'm sorry, but that isn't the way to "better for
>>> you." She's upped the calories and fats and is now in the same
>>> league with the take-out stuff. Or the time she was making her own
>>> "better for you" refried beans from canned beans -- again, no
>>> problem. But she went on to say that the store bought refried beans
>>> had bad-for-you lard in them (not necessarily true) and she was
>>> going to make hers better by substituting a quarter pound of bacon
>>> chunks. That's just two examples. But she does it all the time. And
>>> her portion control is way out of whack. If, as you say, she is
>>> reaching an audience that needs to be encouraged to cook, (and I
>>> have read that she is extremely popular with the 25 and under crowd)
>>> she needs to teach something good. I don't mean that she has to
>>> teach no-fat or low-carb (which she attempts) and the like, but
>>> truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating. Janet
>>>
>>
>>
>> Janet, just over half the country is stupid beyond rescue. Someone
>> has to do a cooking show for them. Relax and let it happen. You can't
>> change it.
>
> Hee, hee. Now that's a good sub-title for Food Network: The network for
> those who think they want to cook, and are Stupid Beyond Rescue


Yeah. RR eating for under $20 a day in Manhattan, huddled under a box with a
wino.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Janet B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Default User" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> snip
>>> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her
>>> show. If she can do it, so can you!
>>>
>> snip
>>> Brian
>>>
>> My argument with RR is that she misleads an untutored audience. For
>> instance. She's always going on about how cooking at home is so much
>> better for you, less calories, and you can feel good about eating the
>> food. Then she proceeds to make frozen French fries (no problem
>> there), but she pours melted butter over them and then covers them
>> with cheese. Now, I'm sorry, but that isn't the way to "better for
>> you." She's upped the calories and fats and is now in the same
>> league with the take-out stuff. Or the time she was making her own
>> "better for you" refried beans from canned beans -- again, no
>> problem. But she went on to say that the store bought refried beans
>> had bad-for-you lard in them (not necessarily true) and she was
>> going to make hers better by substituting a quarter pound of bacon
>> chunks. That's just two examples. But she does it all the time. And her
>> portion control is way out of whack. If, as you say, she is
>> reaching an audience that needs to be encouraged to cook, (and I
>> have read that she is extremely popular with the 25 and under crowd)
>> she needs to teach something good. I don't mean that she has to
>> teach no-fat or low-carb (which she attempts) and the like, but
>> truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating. Janet
>>
>
>
> Janet, just over half the country is stupid beyond rescue. Someone
> has to do a cooking show for them. Relax and let it happen. You can't
> change it.

Hee, hee. Now that's a good sub-title for Food Network: The network for
those who think they want to cook, and are Stupid Beyond Rescue

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article >,
Hunter Rose > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:46:21 -0500, "Ubiquitous" >
> wrote:
>
> > Guest Blogging: A Bourdain Throwdown
> > NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT..
> > By Anthony Bourdain
>
> That Bourdain, he can write. I only disagree with one thing -
> Bobby Flay deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

The victims that eat his food do though.

On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> Not even St. Julia?

The Butter Queen!? You gotta be kidding.

nb

In article 2>,
Jeff Edwards > wrote:


> Some of your points are well-taken. Trust me, I live in a community filled
> with woman-of-leisure-soccer-moms who can't be bothered to actually cook,

I don't trust you. Most soccer moms work really hard. Of course, some
don't. Still, if they were lazy, they wouldn't enroll the kids in
soccer and attend the games.

Trust me. I've had three kids in soccer. It is an investment of time.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:14:10 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>>
>> Not even St. Julia?
>
>The Butter Queen!? You gotta be kidding.
>
>nb
She was also a big preacher of moderation...

Christine

On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:

> She was also a big preacher of moderation...

Preaching is not doing. Did she look like she practiced moderation?
I think she practiced satisfaction.

nb

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:27:29 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
>> She was also a big preacher of moderation...
>
>Preaching is not doing. Did she look like she practiced moderation?
>I think she practiced satisfaction.
>
>nb
Have you read any of her writings where she talks about having to
really be careful with how much and what she ate? From what she
describes, she was able to keep her weight in check with not eating
between meals, and not taking seconds, etc.

She always looked healthy to me. Yes, she loved food, but she said
she would rather have a very small piece of something very good,
rather than a huge piece of something that was a diet food.

Christine

"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:27:29 -0600, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>>
>>> She was also a big preacher of moderation...
>>
>>Preaching is not doing. Did she look like she practiced moderation?
>>I think she practiced satisfaction.
>>
>>nb
> Have you read any of her writings where she talks about having to
> really be careful with how much and what she ate? From what she
> describes, she was able to keep her weight in check with not eating
> between meals, and not taking seconds, etc.
>
> She always looked healthy to me. Yes, she loved food, but she said
> she would rather have a very small piece of something very good,
> rather than a huge piece of something that was a diet food.
>
> Christine

She seemed to make exceptions for wine. :-)

On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:

> describes, she was able to keep her weight in check....

I don't know what Julia you were watching, but the one I watched for
last 20 yrs was overweight. She may have taught it, but she obviously
didn't practice it, no matter hard she "tried".

nb

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:34:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message

>She seemed to make exceptions for wine. :-)
>

Maybe so..were you lucky enough to be around her when she had more
than one glass or so of wine? If not, then how do you know that?

Christine

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:40:25 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>
>On 2007-02-14, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
>> describes, she was able to keep her weight in check....
>
>I don't know what Julia you were watching, but the one I watched for
>last 20 yrs was overweight. She may have taught it, but she obviously
>didn't practice it, no matter hard she "tried".
>
>nb

Overweight? You have got to be kidding...

She was a tall woman, and she didn't look like she was starving, but
she didn't look like she was carrying extra weight. All the pictures
I have seen, in books, and on her shows didn't show an overweight
woman.

She did tend to wear the shirt on top of the shirt, and an
apron...which did tend to make her look heavier..but other pictures I
have seen show her to be a trim woman, other than the ravages of age.
The earlier photos show her to have very long, shapely legs. I know
as she got older, she tended to hunch over a bit, as many older people
do.

I just read her book that she wrote with her nephew: My Life in
France. She talks about the need for moderation in there.

Christine, going to look at the pictures of Julia

On Feb 13, 6:46 am, "Ubiquitous" > wrote:
> Guest Blogging: A Bourdain Throwdown
> NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT..
> By Anthony Bourdain

*snip

Someone already posted a link to this article days ago.

"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:34:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
>
>>She seemed to make exceptions for wine. :-)
>>
>
> Maybe so..were you lucky enough to be around her when she had more
> than one glass or so of wine? If not, then how do you know that?
>
> Christine

Ummm.....I was lucky enough to see that, Christine. Actually, my girlfriend
noticed one night, after JC measured 1 cup of wine for some recipe, starting
with a full bottle. By the end of the show, the bottle was gone and there
were no guests.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:16:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message

>> Maybe so..were you lucky enough to be around her when she had more
>> than one glass or so of wine? If not, then how do you know that?
>>
>> Christine
>
>Ummm.....I was lucky enough to see that, Christine. Actually, my girlfriend
>noticed one night, after JC measured 1 cup of wine for some recipe, starting
>with a full bottle. By the end of the show, the bottle was gone and there
>were no guests.
>

And this was a live show? Or one that was taped?

Maybe she had guests visiting the show..and they drank it. But you
didn't see her actually drink it, did you? It seems like you are just
concluding that she must have from that evidence, instead of actually
seeing her drink it.

Sorry..but the empty bottle thing could be any number of things,
including guests being on the set (but not visible by you), and maybe
several takes of the same dish. That would certainly use up the wine
if they did that, without anyone drinking it.

Christine

"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:16:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
>
>>> Maybe so..were you lucky enough to be around her when she had more
>>> than one glass or so of wine? If not, then how do you know that?
>>>
>>> Christine
>>
>>Ummm.....I was lucky enough to see that, Christine. Actually, my
>>girlfriend
>>noticed one night, after JC measured 1 cup of wine for some recipe,
>>starting
>>with a full bottle. By the end of the show, the bottle was gone and there
>>were no guests.
>>
>
> And this was a live show? Or one that was taped?
>
> Maybe she had guests visiting the show..and they drank it. But you
> didn't see her actually drink it, did you? It seems like you are just
> concluding that she must have from that evidence, instead of actually
> seeing her drink it.
>
> Sorry..but the empty bottle thing could be any number of things,
> including guests being on the set (but not visible by you), and maybe
> several takes of the same dish. That would certainly use up the wine
> if they did that, without anyone drinking it.
>
> Christine


She was never separated from the bottle. But, believe what you like. You
have a personal stake in this.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:27:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:


>
>She was never separated from the bottle. But, believe what you like. You
>have a personal stake in this.
>

Whatever.

If it was one of the early shows, it wasn't wine, by the way. It was
water, with either Kitchen Bouquet or Maggi seasoning in it, to
simulate wine. Wine wasn't allowed on the set for those early shows,
from what I have read, and this is what they had to do.

Christine

"Randy Johnson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't think of a single RR 30-minute meal that isn't healthier and, most
> likely, tastier than KFC or BM (Boston Market, but the abbrev. seems
> fitting) greasy chicken with wall-paper paste potatoes and gravy.
>
>
Then I take it you haven't thought of her mini cheeseburger salad with
yellow mustard vinaigrette... Yummo!!

"notbob" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2007-02-14, Janet B. > wrote:
>
>> like, but truthfully teach responsible cooking and eating.
>
> Get real! No successful cooking show has ever been about either of
> those two subjects.
>
> nb
O.k., but then the deal is not to tell your audience that you are making
healthful food. I don't knock Paula Deene because she makes no bones about
what she is cooking.
Janet

On Feb 13, 8:59 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "Janet B." > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > snip
> >> I think the skill level business is part of the reason for her show. If
> >> she can do it, so can you!
>
> > snip
> >> Brian
>
> > My argument with RR is that she misleads an untutored audience. For
> > instance. She's always going on about how cooking at home is so much
> > better for you, less calories, and you can feel good about eating the
> > food. Then she proceeds to make frozen French fries (no problem there),
> > but she pours melted butter over them and then covers them with cheese.
> > Now, I'm sorry, but that isn't the way to "better for you." She's upped
> > the calories and fats and is now in the same league with the take-out
> > stuff. Or the time she was making her own "better for you" refried beans
> > from canned beans -- again, no problem. But she went on to say that the
> > store bought refried beans had bad-for-you lard in them (not necessarily
> > true) and she was going to make hers better by substituting a quarter
> > pound of bacon chunks. That's just two examples. But she does it all the
> > time. And her portion control is way out of whack. If, as you say, she
> > is reaching an audience that needs to be encouraged to cook, (and I have
> > read that she is extremely popular with the 25 and under crowd) she needs
> > to teach something good. I don't mean that she has to teach no-fat or
> > low-carb (which she attempts) and the like, but truthfully teach
> > responsible cooking and eating.
> > Janet
>
> Janet, just over half the country is stupid beyond rescue. Someone has to do
> a cooking show for them. Relax and let it happen. You can't change it.-

Ah, methinks it's time for a new cookery book. HOOPLEHEAD CUISINE.

T.

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

> In article 2>,
> Jeff Edwards > wrote:
>
>
>> Some of your points are well-taken. Trust me, I live in a community
>> filled with woman-of-leisure-soccer-moms who can't be bothered to
>> actually cook,
>
> I don't trust you. Most soccer moms work really hard. Of course,
> some don't. Still, if they were lazy, they wouldn't enroll the kids
> in soccer and attend the games.
>
> Trust me. I've had three kids in soccer. It is an investment of
> time.

I'm not sure I care if you trust me, but I did make a distinction in my
statement. I didn't say "soccer mom", I said "women of leisure soccer
mom". There's a difference, and I speak from experience as well.

-Jeff

Dawn > wrote in
:

> Jeff Edwards wrote:
>
>> I think the issue I and so many of the
>> "bashers" have is that she, Sandra, etc, are dumbing down a network
>> which once had a greater devotion to the food and less fawning over
>> manufactured celebrities and their personalities.
>
> This is a long article, but it pretty much explains the rise, and
> fall, of Food Network over the years. Read it and weep.
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../061002fa_fact

Thanks for posting this. It's a great article and is right on target.

-Jeff