Happy...

Happy Assumption Day, if you're Catholic.

Happy Independence Day, if you're Korean.

Happy Awesome Day, if you're both Korean and Catholic.


_

another potential collectible found

As my search through dusty boxes of my great aunt's and great uncle's possessions continues, I'm happy to report that I just stumbled upon an April 21, 1912 edition of The New York Herald. As you can tell by the date, this isn't just any paper: it's the Titanic special edition, published a week after the tragedy occurred (4/14/12). THE FOUNDERING of the TITANIC, reads the enormous headline. The Herald had previously published a piece closer to the date of the actual sinking, but this edition seems to have been constructed in the spirit of weekly magazines like Time or Newsweek: the passage of time allows for longer essays and more in-depth commentary. I'm afraid to unfold the ancient paper, but the front-page essay, whose first few paragraphs are visible, reads less like just-the-facts journalism and more like, well, an essay.

Almost two years from now, the paper will be 100 years old. Should I auction it off then...? It's not in very good condition; I imagine there are many university libraries, all with copies of the same issue that are in much better shape. Hm. Mental gears are turning.

I'm also pretty sure that, somewhere in this mountain of old stuff, we have a document signed by Theodore Roosevelt. Where the hell did it go...?

UPDATE: I found this depressing bit of news:

Foremost, if the newspaper is brittle, in pieces or falling [apart], it probably has no collector value. This is especially so for atmosphere [i.e., old newspapers with no major events in them]. For a newspaper with news of a major event on the front page, it may still have some collector value but not much. For example, if a key issue newspaper had a value of $500 in solid condition, if it were in pieces and one could not turn the pages without causing more rips and pieces to fall off, the collector value might be as HIGH as $50 -- if any collector would even want it. Newspapers printed prior to the 1870's are usually found in what many would call "excellent" or "near mint" condition. If for some reason it is in a shabby, well-worn, and stained condition, the value drops anywhere from 50% to 100% for those with major historic content. Atmosphere newspapers in this condition have no collector value.

So my "The Foundering of the Titanic" paper probably won't fetch much... not even in 2012.


_

calling all historians

Our family is in possession of an old, old book of illustrations titled Tennyson's Heroes and Heroines. Inside the book is a note and autograph by one Charles Hugo, dated December 25, 1893. The note reads simply, "With kind regards and best wishes, from yours Sincerely."

Delighted to think that I might be in possession of a signature from a member of the Hugo family (Victor Hugo did have a son named Charles), I began researching Charles Hugo online... and immediately discovered that the signer of our family's book was not that Charles Hugo. Victor Hugo's second son died of a stroke in 1871, making it impossible for him to have left an 1893 autograph.

So la question se pose: which Charles Hugo might this be? Just some vague and obscure Charles Hugo, or another Hugo of some renown?


UPDATE: A Google Timeline search produces some interesting possibilities.


_

warms my heart

Bullshit comes in many forms, and one of the most prominent forms is the notion that people can be psychic. That's why this article warms my heart.


_

der Kommissar geht um (uh-oh)!

My buddy Mike has taken off his blogger's hat to write some actual literature. Go over to Naked Villainy and read his fascinating and thoughtful short story, "The Commissar."


_

misuse Johnny Cash lyrics at your peril

My brother David reminded me over dinner last night that some people once asked the Johnny Cash estate for usage rights to the lyrics of his song "Ring of Fire." The reason: they were trying to score a commercial for a hemorrhoid relief product.

The estate said no.

I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down
and the flames went higher

And it burns, burns, burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire

UPDATE: Story here (February 19, 2004; Cash died in 2003):

It may be an obvious match-up, but Johnny Cash's classic "Ring of Fire" won't be used to sell hemorrhoid-relief cream anytime soon.

The Tennessean of Nashville first reported late last month that a Florida TV production company wanted to pitch the idea of using the classic song in a commercial for Preparation H or similar products.

Merle Kilgore, who wrote the 1964 hit with Cash's wife, June Carter Cash, told the newspaper he was mightily amused by the idea when the production company called him. After all, he used to mock-dedicate the song "to the makers of Preparation H" whenever he played the song live.

But Cash's daughter Rosanne said she and her siblings were less fired up.

"There is no way we will ever let that happen," Rosanne Cash told the newspaper. "We would never allow the song to be demeaned like that."

The script for the commercial would have featured Kilgore's own rendition of the song, not Cash's, but the Cash children still hold veto power through June Carter Cash's songwriting credit.

"He [Kilgore] started talking about this moronic tie-in without talking to any of us," Rosanne Cash added. "The song is about the transformative power of love and that's what it has always meant to me and that's what it will always mean to the Cash children."

June Carter Cash died a few months before her husband last year.

"I certainly didn't want to upset the Cash family because I love them," said Kilgore, who now manages Hank Williams Jr. "I just thought it was kind of funny."

"Ring of Fire" may not be associated with hemorrhoids, but the Out There editors definitely remember it being used in a British TV ad for very spicy foods a few years ago.

_

why have a culinary point of view?

Having a culinary point of view (CPOV) is perhaps the most essential quality of any chef who hopes to win at "The Next Food Network Star." I'm on record as saying that I appreciate this attitude and wish to apply it to my own life. Some commenters here at the Hairy Chasms have questioned whether having a culinary point of view is even necessary for a home chef (on TV, specificity = niche marketing), and I want to address that issue in this post.

I was fascinated when I first heard the CPOV refrain a couple seasons back. It made eminent sense to me that these contestants, in order to be successful, would need to practice γνῶθι σεαυτόν (gnothi seauton), Know Thyself.* Essentially, one's knowledge of one's own CPOV is a type of self-knowledge: just who am I (as a chef)? As my commenters would agree, this has obvious implications for a person aiming to star in his or her own cooking show. Specificity perforce limits one's appeal as a TV host, but the target demographic will contain a high percentage of loyal repeat viewers. That's a market that can be cultivated, built upon, and exploited.

But what about for the home chef? Well, to me, the same logic applies: for me to be a successful home chef, it's important not to be willy-nilly in my approach to cooking. This doesn't preclude culinary experimentation and growth as a cook, but it does require me to examine what my strengths and preferences are, and to build from there. Just as we don't speak language in general, we don't cook food in general. Each meal is a specific articulation of our will and our skill. In a real sense, each meal we make expresses who we are. Having a CPOV goes a long way toward guaranteeing consistency in that expression.

In my case the problem is that, like some of the unfortunate contestants on "The Next Food Network Star" who washed out early, I still don't really know what my own CPOV is. The result, I think, is often mediocre, directionless cooking. Being able to cook a limited number of dishes to perfection is one thing, but being rooted in a clear CPOV would enable me to attack many more dishes, including recipes I've never encountered before. Beyond a general knowledge of the fundamentals, a person needs to figure out what they like and dislike, and build a repertoire that reflects their unique strengths. Success at home isn't the same thing as success on TV, but self-knowledge is, I would argue, key to both.

Even if one's CPOV is best labeled "experimental," that, too, is something specific. Look at the crazy chefs of Moto in Chicago. Every meal they create, mostly through molecular gastronomy, is a bona fide original, completely different from whatever had gone before, and yet there's a palpable consistency in what they do. Our CPOV determines our focus. I wouldn't want Korean food prepared by Bobby Flay (who would probably try to substitute gochu with chipotle), but I'd happily eat something Korean prepared by Guy Fieri, whose loose-limbed, freewheeling CPOV includes Asian ingredients.

CPOV matters, whether on TV or at home. It provides direction, whets our sense of purpose, and drives us to express ourselves in ways that faithfully reflect who we are.

UPDATE, August 18, 2010: This post neglects to define what a culinary point of view is; it assumes that followers of "The Next Food Network Star" are aware of how the term is used by the judges and the contestants. Still, the lack of a definition of CPOV in this post is a pretty glaring omission, so I'll be tackling that subject in an upcoming post.

---

*Referenced in "The Matrix" as the Latin "temet nosce," where the motto could be seen above the kitchen door of the Oracle. Originally an inscription on Apollo's temple at Delphi. See here.


_

at long last, "share" buttons added

Thanks, Aaron McKenzie of Idiots' Collective, for pointing me to the AddThis site. Adding the code proved to be simple and painless.

AND NOW I HAVE BUTTONS, PEOPLE! Let the world beware!


_

oh, yeah-- before I forget

Happy Eight-Nine-Ten. If you're American, then you'll write today's date as 8/9/10. I guess that, for you Europeans, you'll have to wait until September 8 to get your own 8.9.10, ja?


_

toothpaste asymptote

I've noticed that automobile gas tanks and batteries of all shapes and sizes follow the same general principle: they seem to last forever until they reach roughly the halfway point, after which they deplete at a logarithmic rate. It's a long time from "full" to "half" in my car, but no time at all from "half" to "fuel light."

Toothpaste tubes, thankfully, seem to follow the opposite rule: they deplete rapidly until you reach that final glob residing right next to the opening, then suddenly act as if they contain an infinite supply of toothpaste. A mere hint of a squeeze is enough to send out enough dentifrice to cover the bristles of one's toothbrush. It's not much, but it's always enough, and this state of affairs can last for weeks—even months. Do toothpaste tubes contain little wormholes into a universe filled with the stuff? The mind boggles at the implications.

Or perhaps a single universe is sufficient to explain the problem. Squeezing your toothpaste down to zero is a lot like accelerating an object to the speed of light: it takes an infinite amount of force to reach the speed of light, and the graph of the force necessary to push an object to that goal veers upward to avoid the asymptote set in place by Mother Nature. The same may apply to toothpaste in a tube: it may never be possible to empty any given tube of its paste; the force required would approach infinity, and this is why we always end up throwing away so much toothpaste.

It could be that the interior of a toothpaste tube begins to behave strangely as the toothpaste approaches zero. I'm sure some sort of experiment, performed at CERN, for example, could show us what we're up against.


_

surprise, surprise: we say goodbye to Aria

I've been remiss in providing commentary on the elimination process over at Food Network's "The Next Food Network Star." Last I wrote, we said goodbye to Brianna, the self-admitted diva who cooked at a consistently high level, proved bizarrely able to work with others despite her prickly nature, yet fell in the end because she never quite demonstrated that "it" factor-- the elusive quality that allows some folks to be comfortable in front of a camera, but not others.

Since then, three episodes have gone by. We lost outspoken, frenetic Serena in the Week 7 episode while Aarti once again proved able to shine despite her native timidity. Week 8 saw some of the judges in tears as they cut Brad-- the "pro" chef whose cooking proved far too inconsistent for my taste. Brad probably had to go: whatever charm he had in person with the judges, it never registered on camera for me. I found Brad personable, but little else. In his own environment, I don't doubt he's an excellent chef, and we did see some flashes of that excellence over the course of several weeks, but ultimately, I couldn't see him as a TV host. (NB: Food Network already employs some dry presenters. Michael Chiarello comes to mind right away, and I often find myself wishing that Ina Garten would liven herself up. The difference, though, is that I think Garten is a far superior chef.)

This brings us to tonight's episode: Week 9, which may well be the most controversial episode of the season. This was the episode in which we went from four to the final three. When I originally predicted who would be in the top five, I named Aria, Herb, Serena, Aarti, and Brad. Of those five, I would have said that Aria and Aarti would be in the top three, along with Herb. As it turned out, we lost Aria tonight, and Tom-- who I thought would wash out before the halfway point-- has somehow managed to tough it out to be in the final three.

Tom's inclusion is what makes this episode controversial, at least to my mind. If we think purely in terms of a story arc, then I've enjoyed Tom's improvement over the weeks as he's come to understand what it takes to work with the camera. Tom's problem, though-- and I mentioned this last time-- is the enormous gap between his concepts and his execution. Far too many of his dishes have started with the best of intentions, only to end in culinary ruin. The same rough-edged lack of discipline that allows Tom to be creative is also what makes him produce some truly inedible dishes (e.g., that awful jerk-spiced slaw from several weeks back). I fully expected Tom to be leaving us tonight.

The Week 9 challenge saw the contestants traveling from California to New York, and instead of a two-challenge event (usually it's a camera challenge followed by a "star challenge" the next day), this episode featured only one challenge in two parts, with Alton Brown hosting a scaled-down version of "Iron Chef America." The judging panel included the regular three judges-- Bob Tuschman, Susie Fogelson, and Bobby Flay-- and added three more Iron Chefs to the mix: Michael Symon, Masaharu Morimoto, and Cat Cora.

Alton Brown explained the rules: the two chefs who were cooking would have to produce three dishes in 60 minutes using the secret theme ingredient; meanwhile, the other two chefs were to patrol the studio and offer Kevin Brauch-style commentary that was as spot-on as possible. After the one-hour combat, the pair that had been commenting would don their aprons and cook while the previous cooks would become commentators. In the end, both the cuisine and the commentary would be judged.

Herb faced off against Aarti; their secret ingredient was shrimp. This left Aria and Tom to comment on the action, and it quickly became obvious that Tom was far more thorough and engaged than Aria who, to all intents and purposes, didn't seem to be taking her role too seriously. Her demeanor justified a constant complaint by Bobby Flay (and sometimes the other judges as well) that Aria, because she's naturally at ease with the camera as well as an excellent chef, often seems to be coasting by or phoning in her performance. Along with the notion of a clear culinary point of view, the judges value progress in the contestants, and if the contestants don't seem to be evolving over time, what seemed initially charming could curdle into something far less appealing. Tom knew ingredients and procedures, and when he didn't know the answer to a question thrown out by Alton Brown, he quickly found the answer out and gave it to Brown, stat.

Aarti was, predictably, the winner of the contest between her and Herb. Herb's first dish was pronounced excellent by all the judges, but his second dish included a bit of grit from some improperly cleaned clams, and his third dish was considered a failure. Aarti, meanwhile, received high praise from all the judges for each of her meals. Despite her slowpoke style in the kitchen (Bobby Flay was visibly irritated that she wasn't moving faster), she ended up producing food that some of the Iron Chefs deemed worthy to appear in Kitchen Stadium.*

Aarti and Herb switched hats and became commentators while Tom and Aria geared up for battle. Their secret ingredient: bacon. Aria, insistent upon her "family style" culinary point of view, made the mistake of using bacon as little more than a garnish or a side in all three of her dishes. Tom, meanwhile, made the hilarious decision to go for broke, featuring bacon as the star of all three of his dishes, and in the process creating some of the most horrifying food I've ever seen anyone make. I was shouting "Don't do it! Jesus!" at the TV when he told the camera that his second dish would be a "bacon steak," which turned out to be exactly what it sounded like: an obscene, steak-sized slab of bacon! Unlike pork chops, which can afford a slight pink hue in the middle,** bacon needs to be cooked all the way through. When something that thick gets cooked that thoroughly, what you're left with is shoe leather. Even I could see that coming.

Herb turned out to be a very competent commentator during the Tom/Aria battle; he was both engaging and alert. He messed up the scripted line he had to recite for the camera, but was otherwise quite good. Aarti, meanwhile, stood around doing very little, offering commentary only when prompted. She was probably worse than Aria, who also seemed somewhat disengaged from the action.

In the end, Aarti and Tom were declared "safe" by the judges-- Aarti for her excellent cooking, and Tom for his excellent commentary. This left Herb and Aria on the chopping block, and given their respective performances that episode, it was Aria who got the chop. As Bob Tuschman noted, Herb's food was better than Aria's that day (Aria had played it too safe, and may have missed the point of the Iron Chef challenge), but it still came as a surprise to me that Aria was cut while Tom was allowed onward to the final.

If I understand the judges' reasoning, Aria was eliminated because she had failed to demonstrate any real growth over the course of nine weeks. She came into the competition with a natural poise and camera-friendliness, as well as a clear culinary point of view and plenty of raw talent. However, as time went on, her unapologetic insistence on that point of view-- which she never truly refined or amped up-- became her downfall. Tom, on the other hand, came into the competition as a recently unemployed chef, and unlike Aria, he learned from his trial by fire on the show. All the same, I think Tom's improvement has been entirely in terms of his on-camera persona; his cooking remains as undisciplined and inconsistent as when he started. It's amazing to me that he could produce three inedible dishes*** and still be allowed on to the final (as was the case in previous seasons, the finale will pit three contestants against each other). As much as I've enjoyed watching Tom, I don't think he deserves to be among the final three.

That brings us to the finale next week. My prediction: Aarti will win. Her on-camera poise and consistently excellent cooking skills, along with her Indian-themed approach to food, will prove irresistible. I also think, however, that Herb may end up being offered his own show as well, just as happened with runner-up Adam Gertler (currently doing "Kid in a Candy Store") of Season 4. Personally, I'm rooting for Herb. He's nowhere near as consistently good a cook as Aarti, but his enthusiasm is infectious, as is his earnestness. I've also seen him produce some remarkably beautiful dishes over the past two months, and think he has what it takes to be a star in his own right.

---

*I've never liked the name "Kitchen Stadium." Both nouns, "kitchen" and "stadium," are generic; when placed together, they sound even more generic. The name conveys no oomph. They should call the place Morimotokan!

**This wasn't always the case. The old doctrine was that all pork had to be cooked until well done because of the possibility of trichinosis. Nowadays, despite all the flak about factory farming, most pork is parasite-free and can thus be cooked just short of well done to preserve tenderness and juiciness. Think I'm lying?

***Tom's first bacon-themed dish was a "bacon cake," i.e., a crab cake-style concoction made from bacon. The bacon steak was his second dish, and his third dish was a bacon French toast... with clams. If I hadn't seen Tom cook decent food in other episodes, and had been allowed to judge his abilities only by the evidence seen in Week 9, I would have assumed he was a culinary idiot. Bacon cake sounds very much like something I would make at home... but only when alone, and purely for the sake of naughty experimentation. I would never, ever, inflict something like that on another human being.


_

artificial intelligent life

In AI circles, you often hear the word "intelligence" defined as "problem-solving ability." With that in mind, you'll likely find this article rather interesting.


_

bumper sticker ideas

1. My Other Car is a TONGUE.

2. Proud Parent of a 6th-grade Honor Roll Student Who is Also a Proud Parent



_

finally saw "Rambo"

"Rambo" was playing on one of those Fox commercial channels last night. It was the edited version, seeded with ads and blanked-out profanity (even digitally fuzzed-out subtitles). Some of the gore may have been cut out as well. Overall, I found the movie entertaining, and far superior to both the second and third Rambo films. One aspect of the newest film disturbed me, though: Rambo expends a good deal of effort to rescue a beautiful white missionary, but this scene is intercut with the rape of a group of native Karen women (the movie is set in Burma,* where Karen rebels are fighting for their freedom from the brutal military junta), producing a queasy, perhaps-unintended sense of racial bias.** It certainly wasn't obvious to me that those women received any justice. Stallone wrote and directed the film, so it may be that he was deliberately casting the Rambo character in a not-so-noble light. David Morrell, the author who created the self-loathing, ultra-violent Vietnam vet, apparently felt that this film captured the feel of his original Rambo concept, which supports the idea that Stallone knew what he was doing. Come to think of it, very few people in the film come off as truly likable: Rambo is sullen and bitter; the mercenaries are... well, mercenaries; the missionaries are insufferably self-righteous; and even the Karen people are ciphers-- little more than victims of the junta.

Despite these problems, I enjoyed the gritty feel of the plot, and the 80s-throwback tone. It was interesting to see that two of the cast members were faces I knew from watching "24." I also savored the movie's treatment of Big Issues: whether the world is constantly changing or the same, whether human nature can rise above the merely animal, and whether killing is ever justified. In all, not a bad flick, though it's definitely not for the ladies. (In fact, the movie might best function as a tonic for guys who have just had to sit through a treacly romantic comedy with their Significant Other.)

In watching the movie, I was amazed to discover how right my parody of the "Rambo" preview trailer was. The trailer pretty much gave away the plot of the whole movie.

---

*From the online CIA World Factbook:

Since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw. (entry last updated June 24, 2010)

**Then again, the image of a hulking white guy slashing his way through hordes of little brown people calls to mind George Carlin's old rant about American military policy: if they're brown, we bomb them. I'm not saying I agree with Carlin's caricature, but it has to be admitted that the movie doesn't exactly refute Carlin's satirical imagery. Then again, the Karen rebels themselves felt energized by Stallone's film, which was an underground success in Burma.


_

two scraps of paper

Back in May, when I went to upstate New York with my father to visit our church's former pastor, we pulled over at one of those roadside rest stops and got ourselves some fast food. Dad went over to the counter for Nathan's hot dogs, but upon seeing their limited menu and over-expensive dogs, I made a face and lumbered over to the Burger King counter. The girl behind the counter proved unable to do math in her head. This was the first time I had seen innumeracy up close-- and at a cash register, no less.

First, the girl rang up the transaction incorrectly. The meal was $14.10, and I had given her a 20-dollar bill, plus a dime, but she rang it up as if I had given her a fifty. I had intended to make life easier for her by allowing her to give me back an even six dollars in change. Instead, the addition of the dime freaked her out, apparently compounding the stress of her initial twenty/fifty mistake.

Unable to figure out what to do, the girl left the register and retreated to some secluded spot in the back. I caught a glimpse of her, pen in hand, trying to work out the math while I waited... and waited. Eventually, she came back, showing me her chicken scrawl and asking me whether this was right-- i.e., that she owed me six dollars. I nodded, simultaneously astounded and annoyed, and she gave me the proper change.

The total time I waited after my food had arrived on a tray? At least five minutes. I still shake my head in wonder when I think that this girl was supposed to be a cashier.

Note to the innumerate: don't handle money if you can't do the arithmetic. You're better off having a friend or proxy help you.

See the receipt below, which I kept for sentimental reasons:

The second scrap of paper was something I found only a few minutes ago. In digging through my mother's personal effects, I found this little note, which she must have written years ago, and which speaks volumes about her assessment of my father's intelligence and common sense:






The above rings especially true these days. I won't say more, except to note how much I miss Mom.


_

whoa

I had a dream that I was engaged in some sort of martial arts flirtation with the Food Network's Claire Robinson-- she of "Five Ingredient Fix." We were sparring playfully, and joking as we sparred. Very strange.


_

finding humor in a shitty situation

_

sometimes it's the only language some creatures understand

Man tasers recidivist bear.

Good.


_

testing new feature

Are there "sharing" links at the bottom of this post?

UPDATE: Nope.


_

moon talk

Today, July 20, marks the 41st anniversary of the moon landing. While I don't normally bother linking to InstaPundit, I'll offer a link this once to an entry that links, in its turn, to a video piece by Bill Whittle on the past, present, and future of the American space program. Very inspiring stuff.

NB: I didn't link directly to Whittle's piece because it's a PJTV video, and might not be visible to non-subscribers.


_