Search Results for: Nutanix - NCP-5.15 - Nutanix Certified Professional - Multi cloud Infrastructure –Valid Valid Vce 😫 The page for free download of ➡ NCP-5.15 ️⬅️ on 「 www.pdfvce.com 」 will open immediately 🥊NCP-5.15 Free Exam

Number of Results: 250

A Taste for Romance

Q San Francisco
March 1998
Pages 43-44

A Taste for Romance

romanceIt is tempting, for an issue on pets, to be twistedly evil and write a column on Barbecued Basset or Grilled Guinea Pig. I could perhaps even suggest some wines to pair with Neon Tetra Sushi. On the other hand, I could go the cute route and offer up some recipes for Sautéed Friskie Kibbles or Tuna-Liver Mousse for your Abyssinian.

Last year at this time I helped you plan a seduction dinner. This year, I offer a romantic dinner for those of us who are single and think we like it that way. It’s just like in the movies. You prepare a beautiful candlelit dinner – incredible food, great wine – and you raise your glass to, well, yourself. Perhaps you offer a toast to Fido or Fluffy.

So what’s the perfect seduction dinner for the one you love the most? Caviar and Champagne is a must for the start of the evening. I am particularly fond of osetra caviar–not the most expensive, beluga–but I think the most flavorful. A nice three ounce tin should be just about right, especially if you’d forgotten that you made a date for the evening. A dab of creme fraiche, similar to but more elegant than sour cream, and perhaps a small sprinkling of chopped chives make it just perfect. Eat slowly, savoring each spoonful, alternating with sips of Heidsieck Monopole’s Diamant Bleu, my current choice for imported bubbly. If you want to stick closer to home, the L’Ermitage from Roederer Estate in Anderson Valley is particularly delightful.

Chocolate and foie gras seem an unlikely combination, but who can resist either? Doing a riff on an idea from the chefs at the Four Seasons Hotel, here is a delicious hot soup that combines the two.

Mexican Chocolate Soup with Foie Gras Toasts
(for 2, just in case)

1 pound porcini mushrooms
1 large shallot
1 tablespoon butter
3 cups of water
1 cup milk
1 teaspoon fresh thyme leaves
2 ounces Mexican chocolate
salt
4 ounces foie gras mousse
raisin bread

Coarsely chop the mushrooms and finely chop the shallot. Sauté in butter over low heat with a sprinkling of salt till most of the moisture has evaporated. Add water, bring to a boil, and simmer until reduced to half the volume. Add milk, chocolate and thyme, and heat through till chocolate has melted and is thoroughly mixed in. Season with salt to taste. Be sure to use Mexican chocolate, which has bits of almond and cinnamon that provide additional seasoning already in it. For the raisin bread, I like those little “cocktail” loaves. Trim the crusts, toast the slices and serve warm with foie gras mousse spread on them. Dipped in the soup, well, I told you it would work. Keep sipping champagne.

There is a somewhat odd, but rather seductive drink called a Black Velvet. It’s made by mixing equal parts of Guinness Stout and Champagne. I find it useful in cooking a particularly tasty dish.

Black Velvet Beef Filet
(for 2, just because)

2 4-ounce beef filets
1 pint Guinness Stout
1 pint Champagne
1 tablespoon coarse salt
1 tablespoon cracked black pepper
2 tablespoons olive oil
1 tablespoon cold butter, diced

Mix half each of the stout and champagne together in a container big enough to hold the filets. Rub the filets with the salt and peppercorns and marinate in the liquid for at least 2 hours, preferably overnight. Sear the beef over high heat in the olive oil till browned on all sides. Add the remaining stout and champagne to the pan, cover, reduce heat and braise the meat until very tender — about 1-1/2 hours. Remove the meat and set it aside. Over high heat, reduce the remaining liquid till it is about half a cup. Whisk in butter till sauce is smooth. Serve over the beef, accompanied by your choice of veggies, potatoes, rice, or whatever you (or whomever may have happened by) like(s). Open a nice bottle of a lighter Bordeaux or California Meritage – personal choices would be, respectively, Chateau Kirwan and Mount Veeder Reserve.

You simply must treat yourself to a really good cheese course. At this point, I’d opt for a selection of blue cheeses. This might be the perfect moment to compare Roquefort, Gorgonzola and Stilton, like you’ve always wanted to. Continue to drink your red wine.

Dessert is a must, of course.

Figs, I think.

Honeyed Figs with Amaretto Cream
(Serves…well, you know)

4 ripe, fresh figs
1/4 cup honey
1/4 cup armagnac
1/4 cup red wine
1 teaspoon grated lemon peel
1 teaspoon grated orange peel
1 clove & 1 cinnamon stick
1 cup heavy cream
2 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons amaretto

Quarter the figs and place in a heatproof glass bowl. Bring honey, armagnac (or other brandy), red wine, zests, clove and cinnamon stick to a boil in a small saucepan. Pour over figs and let stand till cool. Refrigerate overnight. Whip cream with sugar and amaretto till stiff. Serve over figs. There should be enough left over in case whomever dropped by wants to stay and play.


Q San Francisco magazine premiered in late 1995 as a ultra-slick, ultra-hip gay lifestyle magazine targeted primarily for the San Francisco community. It was launched by my friends Don Tuthill and Robert Adams, respectively the publisher and editor-in-chief, who had owned and run Genre magazine for several years prior. They asked me to come along as the food and wine geek, umm, editor, for this venture as well. In order to devote their time to Passport magazine, their newest venture, they ceased publication of QSF in early 2003.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Amos – “Actions Speak Louder than Words”

Amos, a contemporary of Hosea and Isaiah, was a bit of an elder statesmen in comparison. He came late to the game, after a long career as a shepherd and fig farmer. Social justice is his banner, particularly in regard to the disparities between the wealthy and the poor. He was a big believer in God’s omnipotence, and divine judgment. Singled out, over and over, in his teachings was his belief that actions speak louder than words – a man who does bad deeds can’t make up for them simply through prayer and repentance.

  1. May as well open with a bang and God threatening to rain down destruction on Damascus, Gaza, and Tyre for the sins of their populations. By way of introduction, all we get is that Amos, a longtime shepherd, is passing on the announcement.
  2. I’ve heard the argument that Jews are held to a higher standard of morality before, but here we have it spelled out. While the folk of Moab and Egypt are being called out for rape, murder, and rampaging, the folk of Israel are being called out for not treating the poor well, for fathers and sons visiting the same prostitute, and for drinking fine wine instead of consecrated swill in sacred spaces. Same punishments are being meted out – death, destruction, and exile.
  3. It’s all very metaphorical, but my sense of what Amos is trying to say on behalf of God is that bad stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If wicked folk from one culture are turning folk in your culture wicked too, then at least part of the responsibility lies with your own culture and its leaders, as the people have apparently found them lacking.
  4. Look, says God, I’ve sent different groups of you one punishment after another for not following my ways. Over and over, I’ve sent death and destruction, and you folks just don’t come back and worship me. I don’t get it, what are you doing wrong that you’re not falling in line? I know it’s not my fault, I’ve done my part. You just go on worshiping other gods who promise you nice things and better times. I’m promising that if you worship me, I might just stop ruining your lives. I think that’s a fair offer.
  5. God’s still on a rant…. he doesn’t want to hear your prayers and your hymns and your music of either joy or sorrow, not if it’s not accompanied by bowing down to him, making sacrifices to him, and, just, by the way, please get rid of all those images of “astral deities” that you’ve got posted on your wall. It’s my way or the highw… um, no, actually, it’s my way or I’m going to slaughter 90% of you, just to remind you who you should be worshipping.
  6. We’re still on a bit of a “drain the swamp” kick, with God promising to wipe out the indolent rich folk and the corrupt officials of justice. I’m guessing, based on the prophetic books we’ve already covered to date, that at some point his head of steam is going to wind down, he’s going to lament all of his ranting, and promise to raise his people up rather than mow them down.
  7. So, the rich and powerful folk aren’t happy that Amos is going around spouting all this stuff about death and destruction, and as has happened with past prophets, put out an order to stop him. But Amos says, hey, wait, I’m not a prophet, I’m a cattle breeder, and a fig tree farmer, I’m just saying things that come to me. And they’re all like, well, STFU, and he’s like, but I feel compelled to tell you my visions, like it’s from God or something. And they’re like, we said, STFU.
  8. God tells Amos to look in a basket and tell him what he sees. He sees it’s full of figs. God then says, see, right there, that’s all the evidence I need to turn the Israelites into nomads, strip them of their riches, and kill off a bunch of them. You see it too, right? Amos sees a basket of figs. But God apparently sees the deeper meaning of a basket of figs – exile, destruction, and death. I mean, how could you miss it? It’s a basket of figs!
  9. No where to run, no where to hide. God’s gonna hunt down every last one of you who violates his rules and put you to death by sword. Then he’s going to restore Israel to be a land of plenty, where the Jews will live happily ever after. End scene.

 

Doneless Deconstruction

Outlet Radio Network
August 2, 2004

Doneless Deconstruction

“Grilled Doneless Pork Chips in AMex Spicy Saucy”. I hope and pray that this special advertised at a local eatery was merely the result of a poor command of the English language. If it isn’t, the trend towards “creative” cookery has just gone way ’round the bend. The image of thinly sliced, undercooked bacon with bits of credit card and chilies piled on a plate doesn’t do much for my appetite.

Now, I’m all for experimentation in the kitchen. I do it all the time. We all do. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. Sometimes you open the refrigerator and there’s a jar of olives, some left over fried chicken, and an apple, and we say “oh, what the hell…” We don’t tell anyone we ate them together. Over day old rice left from the Chinese food.

But there’s a trend out there in the world that makes me uneasy. The current shining light is a Spanish gentleman by the name of Ferran Adria. He is touted by many as a slightly mad genius – turning food into foams and essences, powders and leathers. I’ve never eaten at his restaurant, and am unlikely ever to do so. I can’t say that it wouldn’t be an interesting experience. I can say it’s not really the way I want to experience dinner.

He’s not the only one. Every major dining city now has it’s dean of “deconstruction”. Yes, deconstruction is the term used for turning a perfectly delectable melange of flavors into an awkward experience of its components. Two of my favorite writers from the New York Times recently hosted a dinner party where they experimented with the concept. I enjoyed reading about their experience, it would have been fun to attend, but they also approached it with a “just what the hell is this all about” attitude. And you can bet the next day dinner was a bit more, well, put-together.

I’ve had dinner at a couple of those kinds of places, one in New York, one in Florence. My experiences at both were of the “this kind of stuff will be liked by people who like this kind of stuff” variety. Or, as one of my best friends phrased it, “blender food”. Lacking in a bit of substance to sink your teeth into. Air, foam, essence. Not dinner. I haven’t been back to either place.

And, by the way, it’s been done. There’s a packet of orange powder inside the famous blue box alongside the macaroni. Let’s see one of these temples of dining experience line that up with a pat of butter and splash of milk… Now that’s a cheese plate.


I started writing food & wine columns for the Outlet Radio Network, an online radio station in December 2003. They went out of business in June 2005.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Don’t Say… ?

There has been a lot of outcry over the “Don’t Say Gay” bill debated and recently passed by the Florida legislature (HB1557/SB1834). On one side, the claim is that the bill prohibits any school teacher or administrator or third party in a school from ever mentioning anything related to gender identity and/or sexuality. On the other side, the claim is that the bill simply asserts the rights of parents to have a say in what their children learn about those topics. Since the only thing I’ve seen in relation to this has been a lot of social media and news reports, all without any citation, and all with a lot of hand-wringing, I decided to read the bill myself.

Now, not being a lawyer, I can’t delve into what might be possible because of specific wording. Legal scholars and lawyers will no doubt argue the fine points in court cases to come where this new law gets tested. But the bill is basically only three pages, and nothing that comes across as deeply mystifying legalese, so I’m going to give it a stab.

Edit: I’ve been asked to give bullet-points about my conclusions, and you can read on to flesh out the details:

  • This law only applies to public schools
  • This law applies to all grades, not just the GOP touted “it’s only kindergarten through third grade kids”. That’s just one sentence out of the bill, the rest applies to all grades. 
  • This law leaves vulnerable kids, particularly LGBTQIA+ kids, without a safety net for counseling, making it “talk to your parents” or nothing, and obligating school employees to notify parents of anything kids say about their sexuality or identity.
  • By leaving the definition of “age appropriate” vague, this law puts the onus of defining it on state employees whose jobs are beholden to elected officials, while taking those officials off the hook for making what might turn out to be unpopular decisions.
  • Edit: This all didn’t age well, as over the next 10 months, Governor DeSantis, by executive fiat, extended all these restrictions through the rest of elementary school, and then on to secondary school; upped the ante on book-banning in school libraries, while cheering on private forays into public libraries and bookstores as well. And then, another couple of months later, got the legislature to codify it into law. Also added in prohibitions on teachers and school employees “using” pronouns or asking students what theirs are, and prohibited trans students (well, trans people in general) from using public restrooms unless they correspond to their birth gender, regardless of whether they’ve undergone any medical transition procedures, subject to genital examination, DNA testing, and the potential for arrest for using the wrong bathroom.

First, this bill does not apply to all schools. It applies specifically and only to public schools. What a private school chooses to teach and how they interact with parents is not addressed.

Second, and probably where much of the debate comes from, is the introductory paragraph, which is a litany of more than a dozen assertions about what the purpose of the bill is. Most of it relates to parental notification and involvement in school approaches to the well-being, both physical and mental, of students.

The basic assertion is that the school and its personnel are not to undertake any actions in the realm of a student’s well-being without either prior involvement of the parents in the decision, or if something happens in the moment, without notifying the parents. In the midst of the litany is a reference to not encouraging classroom discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity in “primary grade levels”. But let’s get into the actual bill, since the preamble doesn’t contain any details of anything enforceable.

The first section of the actual bill requires that a school adopt clear policies for notifying a parent if their child seeks help, or a teacher notices an issue, around their physical, mental, well-being. It requires that the school recommend the child talk to their parent first, and that the parent give permission for the school to be involved in the process. It carves out a clear exception for cases of suspected child abuse that might involve a parent.

But, the troubling part of this is, as someone who began to “come out” as gay during high school, and had friends who did as well, being able to talk to a teacher or counselor about it because of fear of parental reaction, was really important. Had they been prohibited from talking to me about it, I’m not sure where I’d have sought out support. Well, I actually do – since most of the counseling I got ended up being from my rabbi, who was open about having a conversation and not talking to my parents about it, though he did encourage me to do so.

In the same vein, the second section prohibits the school from requiring students to fill out questionnaires or participate in activities that might lead them to openly discuss issues of their physical, mental, or emotional well-being in the school, as opposed to talking to their parents about them (same exception in regard to potential child abuse cases).

Again, the same issue arises… since some of these sorts of issues (at this point, nothing’s been mentioned in the meat of the bill about sexual orientation or gender identity, but we are headed that way) are ones that many kids have reasonable concerns about talking to their parents about. Taking away the option for counseling and support without parental notification or permission leaves vulnerable kids even more at risk for not getting support.

Section three is clearly the one where the “Don’t Say Gay” moniker comes from. But honestly, to me, this is the least troubling part of the bill. The first two sections, as I noted, are where I see a real issue. The only thing that this section prohibits is “classroom instruction” by teachers, administrators, or third parties about sexual orientation or gender identity, for students who are in kindergarten through third grade. From fourth grade on, there’s no prohibition, though there’s an oddly phrased sentence about such classes being age appropriate, not defined, which obviously could be subject to a variety of interpretations. The big issue here is it leaves that definition in the hands of the department of education, which could well make up all sorts of reasons for not teaching about these topics to various grade levels, depending on political pressures from state officials.

While it’s possible that a six year-old could have questions or concerns that might be addressed in counseling (back to the first section), I have to agree that kids of that age don’t need to have those conversations in class. The bill doesn’t prohibit a teacher or administrator from answering questions about such topics, it prohibits making it a part of the curriculum. Could the term “classroom instruction” be misused to castigate a teacher for their approach to answering questions? I suppose, but I imagine that’s in the arena of fine points that will end up in a courtroom.

Section four is pretty innocuous, and probably no different from what every department of education law includes – that any support services offered by school personnel must adhere to guidelines established by the school system and the state’s department of education. Obviously, those guidelines could be altered to be something horrific, but that’s not part of this bill.

Section five requires that the school notify parents at the beginning of the school year what sorts of health services and counseling the school makes available to both students and their parents. Pretty standard.

Section six requires that the schools notify and receive permission from a parent before administering either physical or mental health questionnaires to their kids.

Section seven basically just establishes the details of what parental notification and permission involves, and parental remedies if a school violates any of the above rules.

In sum, my biggest concern revolves around the lack of access to outside support for vulnerable kids that is built into the first two sections of this bill, now law, that goes into effect this July.

I understand the impetus that many, if not most parents, have to be involved in the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of their kids, and to not have an “outsider” having those conversations. At the same time, they might want to take a momentary step back, and think about their own childhood and teen years, and whether there were issues that they really needed to talk to someone other than their parents about.

Prohibiting any sort of counseling or conversation with a student in this arena on the part of school personnel without parental involvement is short-sighted, and is more likely to create more serious well-being issues for kids. Obviously there need to be some lines that aren’t to be crossed, but the way those two sections of the bill are worded aren’t where the line ought to be. And including vaguely worded phrases like “age appropriate” or “developmentally appropriate” in the law, with the definition of those left to a group of employees of the state, beholden to the governor and/or legislature for their employment, is a slippery slope to nowhere good.

[The bill can be found here: Senate/House bill

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In the Merry-land of chicken

Chicken Maryland

Buenos Aires Herald
On Sunday supplement
Food and Wine

Anyone who spends anytime here discovers quickly that the milanesa, essentially a weiner schnitzel with a touch of Italian heritage, is a staple of both lunch and dinner. There are restaurants devoted just to variations of the dish, from beef to veal to chicken to fish to, now and again, amazingly enough, a vegetable of some sort – soy, squash, eggplant. At its most basic, the clasico, is simply a thin slice of veal or beef that’s been rolled in breadcrumbs and fried until crisp, the center often as tough as shoe leather, and served up on a plate with a wedge or two of lemon.

But there are elaborate versions as well, and one of the ones that caught my eye early on was the suprema maryland – a pounded thin breast of chicken that has likewise been breaded and fried, and served up with some combination of corn and/or peas, cream or bechamel, or not, peppers, ham, bacon, fried egg, and, generally, a fried banana. One has to wonder just where such a concoction came from. There is a history of Chicken Maryland – the two most classic versions are from the state of the same name in the U.S., where it is a dish of fried chicken with a white cream gravy; and, a British version of fried chicken served with a corn fritter and, there, a fried banana.

But there are other versions as well – battered chicken served with ham and hush puppies, the batter generally including sweetcorn mixed in, other versions with fried pineapple rings, and still others with pieces of friend chicken sauteed with sliced bananas. In southeast Asia it’s served with fried tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, and yes, bananas. One thing that all have in common, with the exception of the Argentine version, they are invariably made with chicken thighs and legs.

So what can we do to lighten this dish up and make it a tad healthier? The biggest thing is eliminating all the frying; and the second is taking out the ham or bacon and putting in a lean roast pork loin. I also recommend using panko crumbs rather than regular breadcrumbs – they absorb less oil. And plantains bake up better than bananas. This dish looks potentially complicated, but it’s actually quite easy to put together.

Chicken Maryland

2 chicken breasts, pounded thin and cut in 2-3 cm strips
flour
1 egg
panko crumbs

2 plantains
100 gm melting cheese – mozzarella, danbo, or something similar
1 tablespoon olive oil

100 gm red bell pepper, diced
100 gm corn kernels
100 gm fresh peas
100 gm roasted pork loin, diced
salt, pepper, chili flakes
1 tablespoon olive oil

Turn on your oven to 180°. In a large saute or frying pan warm a tablespoon of oil over low heat. Add the corn, peas, bell pepper and pork. Season lightly with salt, pepper and chili flakes and cook over low heat, stirring occasionally.

While the vegetables are cooking peel the plantains. Oil them with the other tablespoon of olive oil and place on a large baking sheet. Place in the oven and cook for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, dust the chicken strips with salt, pepper and flour. Beat the egg with an equal amount of water. Dip each chicken strip into this and then the panko crumbs (or breadcrumbs). Set aside to dry slightly.

After the 30 minutes, remove the baking sheet. Flip the plantains over onto their other side. Place the chicken strips around the rest of the baking sheet and replace in the oven for 15 minutes. Remove again, slit open the plantains lengthwise, and fill with cheese. Once again into the oven and cook until the cheese is melted and browned (you can use the broiler if you like).

By now the vegetable mixture will be just perfect. Serve all the components together for our updated version of Chicken Maryland.

A series of recipes and articles that I started writing for the Buenos Aires Herald Sunday supplement, Food & Wine section, at the beginning of 2012. My original proposal to them was to take local favorite dishes and classics and lighten them up for modern day sensibilities. We’re not talking spa or diet recipes, but at the very least, making them healthier in content, particularly salt, fat and portion size. As time went by, that morphed into a recipe column that, while emphasizing food that is relatively “good for you”, wasn’t necessarily focused on local cuisine. At the beginning of 2013 I decided to stop writing for them over some administrative issues, but it was fun while it lasted.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Wine Notes – September-October 1996

Felidia Ristorante

Wine Notes
September-October 1996

To Decant or Not To Decant?

Decanting a wine is when we pour a wine from its bottle into a glass carafe called, appropriately enough, a decanter. There are two primary reasons for decanting. The first is to separate the wine from sediment in the bottle. Wine is a living, evolving liquid. As it ages, certain components join together creating particles big enough to settle to the bottom of the bottle. While not harmful to the wine or the drinker, sediment is aesthetically unpleasant and generally is best left behind. This is the reason decanting is done over a candle flame or other light source. It allows us to see through the wine and watch for the sediment reaching the neck of the bottle. It is also why it is best to avoid flipping the bottle around to look at a back label, or suddenly standing it up from a horizontal position – the sediment is stirred up and becomes inseparable from the wine.

The second reason for decanting is to aerate a wine. Certain wines, mostly full-bodied reds, benefit from aeration. Think of it as allowing a big wine that was cramped up in a small bottle to stretch. Merely removing a cork from a bottle does not allow a wine to “breathe” as is commonly assumed. If you think about it only a dime sized surface area is allowed contact with air – breathing could take hours in a full bottle. A decanter with a wider surface area, and the decanting process, provide optimal aeration.

℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘℘

What’s Italian For Cabernet?

When most of us think of Cabernet we think of California. We may not realize that many of the world’s top red wines are made from Cabernet – Bordeaux for example. Italy probably never even enters our minds. Yet Italy produces some truly wonderful Cabernets and Cabernet blends. They are produced throughout the nation, from the far northeast in Friuli, to the islands of the south – Sicilia and Sardegna. Though different in style – not only from the California wines we are used to drinking – but also from each other, these wines are outstanding in their own right. Try an Italian Cabernet with your meal and open a new world of wine drinking for you and your guests.

  • Gaja is one of Piemonte’s premier producers, and his single vineyard Cabernet Darmagi is an outstanding example of the quality of wines he produces. A perfect partner wiht lamb or beef.
  • Although many Super Tuscans include Cabernet in their blend, Isole e Olena‘s Collezione de Marchi Cabernet is a pure standout. Its elegance is a match for our veal dishes.
  • From Sicily, Regaleali Cabernet Sauvignon is a full-bodied wine originally produced as an experimental addition to the Conte Tasca d’Almerita line. A touch of rustic styling makes this a delicious wine with game.
  • Cabernet Franc is often considered the lesser cousin of Cabernet Sauvignon. But in the Colli Orientali del Friuli, Girolamo Dorigo proves there’s nothing lesser about it. This smoky, spicy red is a delight with aromatic sauces on meats or fish.
  • In Veneto, Fausto Maculan is considered a maverick. His rich, full-bodied Fratta and premium Ferrata vineyard Cabernets prove it. drink with poultry or meat dishes.
  • It may look unpronounceable, but Boccadigabbia‘s Akronte Cabernet is anything but undrinkable. Lush and ripe, this wine is ready to drink now with pasta, risotto, and mushrooms.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Why Can’t You Have Both?

Outlet Radio Network
October 22, 2004

Why Can’t You Have Both?

About 13 years ago I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with Craig Claiborne. For those who don’t know who he was, he was probably the most influential restaurant critic who has ever written in the United States. Why? Basically, he was the first true restaurant & food critic for a major newspaper. Not that others hadn’t written about such things, but he raised it to an art form, and, he worked for the New York Times. He was also openly gay. Craig died in 2000. There’s no particular reason for this column, which was written 13 years ago, to pop up now, except it was never published, and I ran across it while I was looking through some of my files. Re-reading it brought back the memory of a wonderful afternoon earlier in my career, and I thought I’d share it here. Parts of this interview, both what’s reproduced below and more, were used by Tom McNamee in his book The Man Who Changed the Way We Eat: Craig Claiborne and the American Food Renaissance, which I’ve reviewed over on my SaltShaker blog.


I’ve been picked up in a lot of places by a lot of different people, in a lot of different ways. I never expected to be picked up at a bus stop, by Craig Claiborne, in a jeep. Then again, I never expected to be picked up by Craig Claiborne. Meeting the man who made it his career to open the doors of fine food to the American public is not the sort of thing a young chef and writer gets to do every day.

Comfortably ensconced in his East Hampton, New York home, a Michael Feinstein album playing in the background, Craig Claiborne talked explicitly about his life and loves. As he is fond of pointing out, his father taught him to always tell the truth. The interview is punctuated by a brief call from his lover of eleven years, calling to make sure I’d been safely collected at the station; by preparations for lunch (we made a pot of his famed corn and crab chowder), all concentration on the task at hand; romantic recollections of intimate encounters; and moments of misty-eyed sentiment as he reminisced about the men and women he has shared his life with.

Two stints in the Navy, bartending, and public relations for ABC, led Craig Claiborne to almost three decades at the New York Times. As the food news editor, he stirred the tastes of a public that hungered for food that hadn’t been scientifically prepared by home economists. Thousands of columns and articles, and a dozen or more books, fed kitchen hints, dining tips, and food facts to millions.

Scene. A youngster sits at the Chicago World’s Fair sampling his first food outside of the south. A bowl of jellied consomme with lemon juice and tabasco.

It was the best thing I ever ate in my life.

Shift scenes. Casablanca, World War II. A young man in uniform is invited by a handsome lieutenant to have a local home-cooked meal. Couscous, coriander, cumin.

One of the most important foods I ever ate was that couscous.

Shift again. The Ile de France, an ocean voyage. A young man, now out of uniform, tenderly bites into a Turbot a l’Infante.

I took one bite and my god, I was transmogrified. I decided, I’ve got to learn how to cook French.

From there life moved swiftly. Hotel school in Lausanne, Switzerland. A couple articles for Gourmet on tea and vodka. Pushing Fluffo, a butter substitute, led to contacts at the top restaurants in town, and more importantly, with Jane Nickerson, then the food editor for The New York Times. When Jane announced her retirement, Craig’s employers took her to lunch to celebrate.

Over a nice bottle of wine, Jane described her difficulty getting away from the newspaper. She said, “everybody in town has tried. If they can scramble an egg and type with two fingers they’ve applied for this job and The New York Times has refused to take anybody.” So after a couple glasses of wine I thought, why not little old me? So I went back to the office and, if you’ll pardon the expression, I closeted myself, and wrote a note to Jane Nickerson, saying, you know all about my background, do you think The New York Times would consider hiring a man as a food writer?

Two interviews, numerous phone calls, a tense vacation on Fire Island, and the job was his.

I went back out to the beach and then I started crying, uncontrollably, saying, I said, by god, what will you ever write a column about? I saw this guy hauling in a bluefish and I said, by god, I’ll write an article about bluefish.

In thirty-three years of writing four and five columns a week, did he ever write that article?

I never wrote a column on bluefish. I don’t like bluefish.

Every writer has those moments that he or she wishes they’d had a chance to write about, opportunities that happen once in a lifetime. Any regrets?

Well, now that I’m gone [from The Times] I can think of things I’d like to do, but let me think… There were two interviews that didn’t work out… But off-hand I can’t really think of one.

He reflects a bit more and then suddenly remembers a writer’s worst nightmare. A trip through the provinces of China, hosted by the U.S. ambassador to Burma and his wife, Burt and Lily Lee Levin, and one of the top restauranteurs in China and Hong Kong, Jimmy Wu. He returned with stacks of 3 by 5 cards.

I spent three solid days writing about this trip to China, and the third morning… I pressed the wrong button. I erased the entire thing. About twenty seven pages. Gone… I couldn’t go back and rewrite, because the notes were all shuffled, I didn’t have them numbered. Gone, with the wind.

In all those weeks in China, what stood out as memorable? Two things. An awful mountain train trip from Chengdu to Chongqing in the Szechuan province, for some of the best food he had on the trip…

It was street food. Which we ate in the rain. They had marvelous, fantastic soups, and noodles, and Szechuan pickles.

and back in Chengdu…

They brought us the next little thing, about that long and that big. I pick it up with my chopsticks and I said, “what is this?” She says, “the penis [bull’s].” Well, I ate the goddamn thing, but it was so unappealing. Not because it was a penis, I’ve had enough of those in my mouth, but it was just so awful to eat.

Well, as long as the subject came up…

I’m not bragging, but I have never met someone, even a straight guy, who I haven’t been to bed with, who I couldn’t take. I mean, I don’t care how many children they have, you get anybody in the right situation, gain his confidence, and after a couple of drinks, if you’re kind, he will. That’s all.

Being gay prior to the ’80s has often been touted as a dark, furtive existence. Corporate life at ABC and The New York Times have never been noted as hotbeds of gay support. What was it like?

Everybody I’ve worked with knows I’m gay. All the people at the New York Times knows.

Did he ever find that it was a problem?

No. The funny thing is, that when my book [A Feast Made For Laughter] was published, Arthur Geld, who was the number two man at the time, it was his attitude to go into more detail about what it was like to be gay. It was never a problem.

And at ABC?

We had a boss named L. Henry. And once, after I’d been there about a year, I told L, I said, “L, you know, I’m gay.” And he shrugged his shoulders. The next day I told Dean [his roommate], and he said, “What did he do, give you a raise?”

You first came out publicly in your memoirs. Did you have any concerns about family, or “the public”?

I had a funny experience. When I was writing my memoirs, and the people I cared about, stating that I’m gay… I’ve never felt guilty about being gay, all my life. I’ve been through a lot of psychotherapy, but I can’t recall ever feeling guilty about homosexuality. And if anybody in the world wanted to know about my sexual persuasion, I’d tell them the truth. Why should I be ashamed, I didn’t ask for this… So, the only thing I cared about was my family, my niece and nephew, and my sister, I didn’t know if she cared or not. So I went down to Mississippi. We went to a restaurant. And I said, “The reason I came down, really, is to tell you that I’m writing my autobiography, and I’m going to talk about my homosexuality in it.” And so, nobody stopped eating, no dropped forks. So when I went to the men’s room, my niece turned to my sister and she said, “Did you hear what Craig said, that he’s going to tell people he’s gay?” And my sister said, “Look, my daddy always told him to tell the truth.”

Outside of being openly gay at work and in his memoirs, and socializing with friends, has he been active in the gay community?

I am not an active person. I get so tired of charities. I’m supposed to be writing the preface to an AIDS cookbook. God knows when it’ll ever come out. I wrote the preface. It’s done. I was host for a dinner, a gay dinner at God’s Love We Deliver… I got the New York Times to first cover AIDS. Larry Kramer mentioned that in his book.

Any “Life’s Most Embarrassing Moments?”

I was invited to a party at Harry Reasoner’s. A very private party. And I got drunk. And Richard Rogers was there. So, I got close to Richard Rogers, and I said, “Mr. Rogers, I’d give anything in the world just to tell somebody that you played the piano for me.” He shuffled along, he’s getting quite old, but he stood up and walked over to the piano, and I sang, with Richard Rogers playing the piano… My voice was terrible.

Forty some years of meeting chefs and restauranteurs from all over the world cannot help but leave an impression on a person. Who stands out as the most influential in Craig Claiborne’s life?

My favorite professor was Monsieur Tour. He had a great effect on me. He was a magnificent looking man, a great skier, extremely masculine. He was the head of table service… [sighs] I’m a very sentimental guy. I think Paul Bocuse [three-star chef in Lyon, France]. I just simply adore Paul Bocuse. He’s cold, a napoleon, that pose… Barry Wine [chef, The Quilted Giraffe, New York]. I love Barry. I think Pierre Franey. Because we worked together so long. Creating recipes together…

Anyone who stands out as the love of Craig Claiborne’s life?

Oh, I think my friend now. Jim. We met eleven years ago, the 3rd of July.

Favorite foods?

I have a passion for hot dogs. Once a month I sneak off and have a hot dog, with sauerkraut. I went to a restaurant called La Petite Tonkenoise [in Paris], vietnamese, and I was served the first course. I was devastated by it. It was a vietnamese spring roll, it’s called “cia gio”. I went to Saigon, in the middle of the war, just to learn to make that one dish.

What’s next on the horizon for Craig Claiborne?

Death. [laughs] That’s the only thing left for me. No, I don’t know. Well, having Jim as a friend. That’s what I live for. To be with him. We’re going to Scotland. And he’s planning a trip next year taking a European train, somewhere. But, that’s all I want. It’s an incredible experience.

As we parted ways back at the bus station, one anecdote kept running through my head.

I had a party once, a lot of TV people. And Harry Reasoner came up to me, from 60 Minutes, and said, “Craig,” he says, we’ve known each other for so many years, you are so obsessed with sex and with food, which do you prefer?” And I said, “Harry, why can’t you have both at the same time?”


I started writing food & wine columns for the Outlet Radio Network, an online radio station in December 2003. They went out of business in June 2005.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Child Development

sarah vineProving that it’s not just us “Americans” who are obsessed with bizarre child development ideas…the British are considering a new Childcare Bill that is aimed at the improved development of “children” aged 0 to 3…

In theory, a child who is not yet able to sit unaided, speak or ingest solids is going to be expected to express “joy, sadness, frustration and fear, leading to the development of strategies to cope with new, challenging or stressful situations”. Assuming that either the child or its carers can fathom what this means, the former is then going to be required to perform the above for the benefit of state inspectors. Great. Hey, Junior, no pressure, but now that you have been breathing on your own for almost 12 hours, isn’t it time that you started working up those recognition skills? What’s that you say? More milk? Milk is for wimps! How about flashcards?

Now I’m not about to bore on about the sanctity of childhood, but only because nought to 3 is not childhood, it’s babyhood. It’s the one brief window of opportunity where it is perfectly OK to eat sand, suck people’s noses and shout “I haven’t got a willie!” at complete strangers in the street. It is, and should remain, as spontaneous as possible. It is certainly no place for invasive legislation (under the proposals childminders and nurseries will be under a legal obligation to teach this wretched Early Years Foundation Stage). And it’s certainly no place for politics.

Mothers don’t need the Government to make them competitive and paranoid about their babies’ development. We already manage that very well on our own. Assuming that one’s nerves survive the gruelling series of tests that now define the various stages of pregnancy, the range of edifying activities open to preschoolers is frankly terrifying. Baby yoga, baby French, baby signing, aqua-babies, baby ballet, potty training, crafty babies, baby massage — all these classes and more thrive wherever the mighty Maclaren roams the streets. It seems that the defining trait of our generation of parents is to obsess about every tiny aspect of our children’s development. In part, it’s the legacy of this generation of working mothers: too busy, too guilt-ridden, too controlling. But it’s also the product of too many experts and their wretched research.

– excerpted from a column by Sarah Vine, The Times (UK)

I can’t really express the ridiculousness of this new bill any better than she did.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail