HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Ten Things Anthony Bourdain and David Chang Hate

"At a raucous, funny, and profane New York Wine & Food Festival panel Friday night, David Chang and Anthony Bourdain scorched the earth of the food world. Dubbed "I Call Bullshit!" their wide-ranging discussion singled out several foods and food trends for scorn, targeted several chefs, named very few things they liked (Wylie Dufresne, Jeremy Fox, the ethnic restaurants of Queens, and Grub Street among them), drank a lot of beer onstage, and, overall, called for a more creative spirit in New York cooking. (Europe is years ahead of New York, charged Chang.) We've distilled their rage into ten separate beefs."
for more:

http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2009/10...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Wow. They sound like recalcitrant 16 year olds.

    10 Replies
    1. re: sedimental

      Or worse: Tony Bourdain on Alice Waters: “She’s Pol Pot in a muumuu."

      Way to trivialize genocide, asshole.

      I may have to take back every nice thing I ever said against him. He's clearly sold out any decency he had to keep his name in the headlines by saying ever-more-shocking things. The funny thing is, I agree with the second part of the quote, which complains about Alice using "six cords of wood" to cook an egg for Lesley Stahl. That's a kind of hyperbole that's reasonable and funny. He's been to Cambodia, he should know better!

      http://www.foodandwine.com/blogs/mout...

      1. re: Ruth Lafler

        Just wondering, Ruth -- Is AB saying these things like a strident comedian, like Don Rickles, and as such his comments are not to be taken literally or seriously?

        1. re: maria lorraine

          Well, I hope they're being said that way. But even *joking* that someone is litke Pol Pot is really trivializing the horror of the regime in Cambodia.

          1. re: Ruth Lafler

            This came up on a thread, now locked, that talked about a cocktail called Irish Car Bomb. Some of us were horrified and others were like "what's the big deal?" I'm with you, Ruth.

            1. re: c oliver

              my parents are holocaust survivors, adn i've spent time in cambodia. i', no stranger tot he horrors of genocide.
              I'm not offended by AB's attempt at humorous hyperbole. i find actual ethnic cleansing a lot worse.

              1. re: thew

                That's sort of my point. Alice Waters is so far from being a genocidal maniac that comparing the two makes it sound like genocide is no big deal.

                When you equate trying to inspire people to eat better to genocide, then that's stretching analogies too far.

                1. re: Ruth Lafler

                  i don't think too many people think it is anything but hyperbole, and think genocide is no big deal. and i so think many people tend to be more easily offended than they might ought

                  i guess i'm saying i'll save my ire for the pol pots of the world, and let the bourdains slide as below the threshold for reaction

                  1. re: thew

                    Yes it's hyperbole on Bourdain's part but it's distasteful hyperbole. He obviously picked something of shock value. I like AB but his NY/East Coast wise ass stuff goes south when it gets personal and goes beyond his usual bad alter boy schtick and into heavy stuff.

                    For me that's at issue here. Bourdain and Chang goes all spastic defensive East Coast on hippie-dippie AW but all they have to offer is the Denis Leary red meat school of knuckle dragging. Sure that's fun up to a point.

                    Frankly some of the hippy mocking is fine but it goes off base once you realize how both these guys owe more to AW then vice versa. In an indirect but certainly connected way, AW game changing made AB and DC's careers possible.

                  2. re: Ruth Lafler

                    People draw comparisons to Nazis all the time. It's about time someone updates the hyperbole! Would it be better to compare AW to Fidel Castro? Mao? Hugo Chavez?

                    1. re: Ericandblueboy

                      Yup, that's where I shake out.

                      Comparing chefs/culinary leaders to dictators had been done for decades.

                      I've been around professional kitchens and professional chefs a long time and heard many a chef referred to as Hitler, Sous-leiman, "Bow to Mao," or -- the closest parallel -- Stalin in fishnets. "Pol Pot in a muu muu" is no different. AB and Chang were drinking copious beers and ripping it in a filmed "living room" discussion. Nothing more than outrageous politically incorrect "humor" and no diff from what you'd on Comedy Central. The line wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

      2. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/around-town...

        What the hell does "Europe is years ahead of New York" mean? What constitutes getting ahead?

        To me, progress is fresher and tastier eggs, chicken, and pork, being able to buy previously unavailable items such as pane di zucchero and Sweet Jimmy Nardello peppers at my farmers market, finding Anson Mills polenta and grits in the bulk bin at my local supermarket ... (no, that last one hasn't happened yet).

        But I think Chang is talking about chefs doing complicated things with food. Dude, you're 20 years behind Berkeley.

        And is he really tired of pork belly? I think his pants are on fire.

        1 Reply
        1. re: Robert Lauriston

          Reading more, I guess they were joking around and only half serious at most.

        2. Here is a clip where they discuss they fact that people over the age of 30 shouldn't start working in kitchens and express, to me, a very funny opinion on Guy Fieri. I like Guy well enough on Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives but the arm band and sunglasses on the back of the head are really douchey.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIk2-8...

          1 Reply
          1. re: KTinNYC

            In fairness to the sunglasses on the back of the head, that's where I put mine. I have no hair. If I tip them up onto my forehead they'll fall off. If I turn them around backwards they stay right where they are. I'm not "Stylin'" in fact, I feel like a bit of a dork. But I'm older now, married and really just don't care. I wan't my sunglasses to stay put.

            That said, I doubt that's why Guy is doing it. He does have hair and is most definitely "Stylin'"

            I like him on 3D but not so much on BB.

            DT

          2. I REALLY need someone to point me toward sources where Alice Waters specifically comes off like she thinks everyone MUST and CAN eat organic and local food. She gets trashed all the time (Chang and Bourdain did it) so there must be something to it. I've seen her interviewed a few times but never got that condescending, preachy thing from her. She does a lot to encourage those things, but what does she have to say or do to convey what should be the obvious fact that not everyone can do either or both.

            27 Replies
            1. re: Midlife

              AW: People have become aware that what we've been eating is making us sick.

              Lesley Stahl: People say Alice Waters is self-righteous and elitist. And these are words I've heard over and over.

              AW: I feel that good food should be a right and not a privilege and it needs to be without pesticides and herbicides. And everybody deserves this food. And that's not elitist.

              LS: We have schools across the country that are cutting gym, where they can't afford books for the kids. Do you think it's possible that what you're doing or what you're trying to do can really be spread all across the country in these times?

              AW: In these times it needs to be spread more than ever. That children would grow up knowing how to cook. This is something that we don't know how to do anymore.

              LS: But can we afford it? I guess that's what I'm asking.

              AW: But we can't not afford it.

              That's really not a good way to say the plain truth that the alternative to sustainable agriculture is unsustainable agriculture, which is to say, famine.

              1. re: Robert Lauriston

                You're gonna need to explain that last sentence to me. I get the words, just not the relevance to what AW preaches.

                All I see AW doing is pleading that we all take more seriously the positive things that can come from local foods grown without pesticides and herbicides. I don't see her case lessened by the fact that most people can't afford it. She may be spitting into the wind, but it sounds to me like she feels that one more person eating well is better than one not. I just don't get why she gets such a bad rap for saying it. Would it help her cause if she began with a disclaimer that it's expensive?

                  1. re: maria lorraine

                    Your own quote:
                    "Alice may be her own worst enemy in getting her message across.

                    School lunches are a huge issue of course, but Alice often seems out of touch with making changes in "the trenches" of school lunchrooms and on family tables across America. Especially in regards to the cost of organic ingredients.

                    And while Alice is sweet and expresses a Romantic lyricism about food, she is also an extremely fierce warrior who brooks no disagreement with her philosophy, even when her philosophy lacks application in the real world."

                    So she is pummeled for being a celebrity who speaks of a nirvana without doing enough to bring it down to reality?

                    She says people have choices. As DQ says below- Nikes or grapes! That comes off as if she expects some ghetto kid to buy organic lettuce with the money he spent on his kicks. Admittedly not realistic, but the point would seem to be that maybe the kids Mom should buy a natural cereal instead of Cocoa Puffs for breakfast.

                    I'll agree that AW might have more impact if she found a way to translate her message into the real world of this country in a more specific way. She just doesn't seem to get the value of speaking to real people in ways they can actually do something with. Has anyone ever asked her if she believes it would be more effective to compromise her message to the reality of, for example, the inner cities of America? I wonder what her answer would be. Like, do a show where she goes through a Food 4 Less and shows what choices there are there.

                    If anything, she's guilty of talking over the heads of the masses of people who need her message the most. Too bad Leslie Stahl didn't say what you said, Maria?

                    1. re: Midlife

                      <<So she is pummeled for being a celebrity who speaks of a nirvana without doing enough to bring it down to reality? >>

                      I think the other thread answers this question thoroughly.
                      The link again is:
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/645065

                      1. re: maria lorraine

                        I really couldn't get much from 88 posts that seem to go back and forth skewering and defending AW. I'm not sure I'm really getting the reason for all the wrath, so I could use a little mpre specific help.

                        What I do get from all this is what I said above: "I'll agree that AW might have more impact if she found a way to translate her message into the real world of this country in a more specific way. She just doesn't seem to get the value of speaking to real people in ways they can actually do something with." ".(she)......comes off as if she expected some ghetto kid to buy organic lettuce with the money he spent on his kicks." "Would it help her cause if she began with a disclaimer that it's expensive?"

                        Is that not the point?

                        Later on I asked Robert Lauriston:
                        "Is it that she just doesn't express the underlying case when she is interviewed?

                        And he replied:
                        "Yes, I think she's just bad at public speaking. She has a lot of energy, passion, and charm, plus an iron will to get things done, but she's a bad spokesperson."

                        Are we both missing something?

                        1. re: Midlife

                          >>"She just doesn't seem to get the value of speaking to real people in ways they can actually do something with."<<

                          Well, that's a lot.

                          And it reflects a disconnect re: humanity.

                          1. re: maria lorraine

                            Alice Waters (and many other people) are trying to change the system to give people more choices and stop subsidizing bad industrial food so it's falsely cheap. That's not going to make much sense to people who mindlessly eat McDonald's every day, at least maybe until they or their kids get diagnosed with diabetes or gout.

                            1. re: Robert Lauriston

                              Agreed, a given. But not what I was referring to.

                              1. re: maria lorraine

                                I've just listened to AW's interview with Charlie Rose [http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008...] and read an article on Civil Eats [http://civileats.com/2009/01/29/ruth-...], which went into the criticism of the dinners AW was part of during the Obama inaugural activities.

                                With the amount of AW criticism on these boards, and in the media, I find it curious that there isn't more understanding (especially here) of the broader message being legitimate. AW wants to see school kids taught about organic. local, sustainable food so that, somewhere down the line they will develop an understanding of the importance of eating better. Is she just plain wrong about the role those things can play in the overall health care issue? Lots of very knowledgeable people, on both sides of politics, seem to agree that health care cost is central to our economic problems. Is there disagreement that what people are eating is a big part of that problem? Seems like AW's stubborn insistence that people CAN do something to improve what they eat is more than most public people are doing about this problem.

                                Granted, it's obvious that there's a huge gap between a kid eating a fast-food burger and an apple. And it would be more realistic to try to get that kid to eat an apple, no matter where or how it was grown, than to insist that the kids MUST have a local, organic apple. Is that what AW gets the
                                heat for? Aiming too high?

                                1. re: Midlife

                                  <<I find it curious that there isn't more understanding (especially here) of the broader message being legitimate>>

                                  I don't know how you're getting this. Her goal is an excellent one. Most everybody thinks so.

                                  1. re: maria lorraine

                                    I just find it hard to understand how calling her elitist and out of touch shows that most everybody agrees with her goal. I must be too logical a thinker for this. I don't see people saying she should be more practical with her excellent message, I just see them as tossing her into the irrelevant category.

                                    In my mind, if you think someone has a good message you give them some room; you don't throw rocks.

                                    1. re: Midlife

                                      I guess I finally get what I'm interpreting as an accusation of AW wasting a serious public platform on unrealistic goals.

                                      From seriouseats.com: "Why all the anger? (Laura - Gourmet Magazine) Shapiro concludes that Alice Waters sees herself as a revolutionary, hell-bent on advancing an agenda, without a consistent regard for its real-world implications. “What irks people,” she writes, “are the impossibly airy goals she likes to swirl about herself like so many silk scarves. But she isn’t a thinker, she’s a utopian, a relentless radical who just doesn’t care whether the current checks and balances of real life can accommodate her ideas.”

                                      And a Bourdain quote: "Alice Waters annoys the living s*it out of me. We're all in the middle of a recession, like we're all going to start buying expensive organic food and running to the green market. There's something very Khmer Rouge about Alice Waters that has become unrealistic.".................“I'm a little reluctant to admit that maybe Americans are too stupid to figure out that the food we're eating is killing us. But I don't know if it's time to send out special squads to close all the McDonald's.”

                                      Poor Alice........................ great message; bad context and delivery!

                                      1. re: Midlife

                                        That's a good post.

                                        My gripe with Alice Waters is that she consistently becomes noticeably annoyed, even angry, when asked basic “real world” implementation questions -- even when those questions are asked with the utmost respect. This is where her PR message breaks down.

                                        Perhaps AW’s utopian-ism and isolation in the Berkeley "bubble" prevent her from understanding — and being sensitive to — the enormous difficulties that arise in implementing her message. That’s a huge disconnect — between her and her message, between her goal and accomplishing her goal, between herself and humanity.

                                        1. re: maria lorraine

                                          Alice Waters has been active in food politics since she got the idea for The Edible Schoolyard in 1993 if not before. She's not naive about how hard it is to change the status quo.

                                          She's not a utopian, either, just a radical. There's nothing unrealistic about the goal of replacing unhealthy, unsustainable industrial food, which has existed for less than a century and is still virtually unknown in many countries, with healthy, sustainable, natural food. It's a mistake that needs to be corrected, like global warming.

                                          1. re: Robert Lauriston

                                            She's both a utopian and a radical. She's complex and contradictory: pioneering, sweet, deeply flawed, soft, very angry, glowing, easily frustrated by obstacles, brilliant and her own worst enemy.

                                            1. re: maria lorraine

                                              She would probably glow even more if she read that. It's wonderful.

                                              1. re: maria lorraine

                                                That's about the best thing said on this thread so far, Maria.

                                2. re: Robert Lauriston

                                  Unfortunately, gout does not differentiate between Oliveto and Burger King.

                      2. re: Midlife

                        "We can't not afford it" is vague and unsupported.

                        1. re: Robert Lauriston

                          I get the point that it is pointless to admonish someone on food stamps that they "can't not afford" a $5.00 carton of local farm eggs, when Walmart sells eggs for $.89. But "vague and unsupported"? She pretty clearly sees this in a similar light to global warming. Some say that's vague and unsupported too. Others disagree.

                          1. re: Midlife

                            In context, I don't think the meaning of "We can't not afford it" was at all clear to anyone unfamilar with the arguments behind Waters's ideals. It just expresses her emotional commitment, it doesn't make the case.

                            1. re: Robert Lauriston

                              Wikipedia says this:

                              She is a leading advocate of a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that works to give every child in the public school system free breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack.[2] She states that taxpayers should endorse this package because we are already paying for it in terms of our health.

                              "Waters advocates eating locally produced foods that are in season, because she believes that the international shipment of mass-produced food is both harmful to the environment and produces an inferior product for the consumer."

                              "She is a leading advocate of a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that works to give every child in the public school system free breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack.[2] She states that taxpayers should endorse this package because we are already paying for it in terms of our health."

                              I'm really just trying to understand what it is that people feel she should do that she's not doing? Is it that she just doesn't express the underlying case when she is interviewed?

                              1. re: Midlife

                                Yes, I think she's just bad at public speaking. She has a lot of energy, passion, and charm, plus an iron will to get things done, but she's a bad spokesperson.

                      3. re: Robert Lauriston

                        Oh, but Robert, you need to keep going to get to the crux of it. That exchange between LS and AW and whether everyone could afford organic went a little further:

                        AW: "We make decisions every day about we we're going to eat. And some people want to buy Nikes, two pairs. And other people want to eat Bronx grapes and nourish themselves."

                        http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/03/...

                        ~TDQ

                        1. re: The Dairy Queen

                          She's stepping on her own message and contradicting herself there.

                          What people want is irrelevant when good choices aren't available and affordable, or when they don't know enough to make informed choices.

                    2. Have to say, I agree with:

                      "Type As. Like the people who take pictures and notes on the food at Ko. “The food’s getting cold,” Chang observed."

                      6 Replies
                      1. re: MMRuth

                        I wouldn't take pictures but I have to admit I love seeing other people's pictures of food they eat. Food papparazzis, so to speak, and I'm the target audience.

                        1. re: chowser

                          I'm going to Ko next week. Maybe I'll take pictures and then ask them to reheat my food. I'm sure that would cause them to drop a few f bombs.

                          1. re: Ericandblueboy

                            From the Ko website:

                            "q: may i take pictures?
                            a: no."

                            1. re: Ericandblueboy

                              Good. There are 12 seats at Ko. I wouldn't want someone clicking away while I'm eating.

                              1. re: KTinNYC

                                What if I just video the entire proceeding? I have a FLIP that can record in HD for 2 hrs. No clicking, no flashing.

                        2. re: MMRuth

                          I loved that one! At Ssam, I was too busy EATING that pork bun to take its picture.

                        3. You can agree with a few of the things they said and still think they're asses. Last I heard, Anthony Bourdain was still an unapologetic sexist pig. I read a profile of Michael Chang in the New Yorker several months ago, and he just came off as someone who thinks he's being transgressive when all he's doing is saying "f*ck" a lot.

                          [edited to give the Chowhound moderators less reason to delete]

                          1. In reference to Alice Waters' discussion above: Ironically Alice Waters is trying to reverse the effects of an affluent society has on its relatively poor and possible somewhat less educated. Industrial rich country food systems provide lots of calories and poor nutrition for relatively low cost. Equally ironic (and not trying to be cynical), a lot of the unhealthy obese of the US perhaps need to spend time in some of the poor, remote rural areas of south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. People would get exercise, no junk food, a smaller and healthier meat ration, more fruit and vegetables - much of it largely organic. Just what Alice promotes. So maybe (cynically) her message to the inner city poor might be, "Get yer collective lard asses to Orissa".

                            21 Replies
                            1. re: Sam Fujisaka

                              I guess, in a nutshell Sam, that's why I have such a problem with all the flack AW takes. Who gives a whatever if she's looking at the world through Berkeley-colored glasses...................she's right!

                              1. re: Midlife

                                I completely agree with you, Midlife. Her message is correct. I also feel if we don't aim extremely high, then we won't get very high (no, not THAT kind of high!). Activists are often criticized but frequently get things done.

                                1. re: c oliver

                                  I'd say her goal is absolutely correct, but her message is off.

                                  1. re: maria lorraine

                                    Or poorly expressed in some's opinion. I don't have the aversion that some do.

                                    1. re: maria lorraine

                                      And aimed at the consumer, who doesn't have as many choices as she seems to think he/she does.

                                      1. re: jmckee

                                        In reality, Alice Waters spends most of her time promoting projects that give people better choices, because she knows that's the root of the problem. That just doesn't get nearly as much public attention as the occasional TV interview, and she's not at all good at using those occasions to communicate what she's really up to.

                                    2. re: c oliver

                                      Exactly. We need to have something to aspire to. If every ideal that was too unrealistic or too hard were just given up on, nothing would ever change. I don't think Alice Waters has any illusions that everyone is going to be eating the way she describes anytime soon. But you have to start somewhere!

                                      I met someone from New Orleans recently who was raving about an Edible Schoolyard program that was started there post-Katrina. http://esynola.org/ So at least she puts her time, money and effort into something real.

                                      It's easy to make fun of someone who is trying something radical -- not so easy to put yourself on the line. What has Anthony Bourdain done that he can sneer at Alice Waters? I looked at his web page and his bio on wikipedia and I don't see any mention that he's involved in any serious philanthropic endeavours. No foundation, no mention of any charities, etc.

                                      1. re: Ruth Lafler

                                        i have no idea what he has done or not done, but not having one's charitable works published as part of a CV doesn't mean they don't exist

                                        1. re: thew

                                          The most valuable thing a celebrity/media personality can do for a charity is publicize it. That's why charities have celebrity spokespeople, honorary chairmen, etc. If Tony Bourdain is actively involved in charities and not promoting them, then he's selling them short.

                                          1. re: Ruth Lafler

                                            maybe so. but there is something to be said about quietly giving for the sake of giving - but this is all baseless speculation anyway

                                            1. re: thew

                                              There's a lot to be said for it on a personal/spiritual level. It's great when people do good things for the saking of doing good, without expecting praise or recognition.

                                              As someone who spent years on the board of a small, struggling nonprofit, I can tell you there's almost nothing to be said for it from the charity's point of view. :-) If someone like Tony Bourdain were actively involved in my charity (as opposed to writing a check once a year), I'd put it on his wikipedia page myself!

                                            2. re: Ruth Lafler

                                              The event with David Chang was part of a festival benefiting the NYC Food Bank and Share Our Strength.. Tickets were $35 and the hall seats 450.

                                              http://www.nycwineandfoodfestival.com...

                                              1. re: Robert Lauriston

                                                That's very nice. However, I was looking for something a little more substantial than showing up at an event and doing his schtick. Some kind of serious, ongoing commitment to something he cares deeply about.

                                      2. re: Midlife

                                        Well, and what Sam said is exactly why I understand all of the issues with Alice Waters, even though I completely agree with her message. Because she seems to have no comprehension that people can't just get their collective lard asses across the world, or why they don't spend $5 on a dozen of organic eggs instead of spending 99 cents on two dozen.

                                        That said, I think that Bourdain is looking like more and more of an ass on this, particularly with comparing her to a dictator who started a genocide. Yes, Alice Waters trying to bring organic food to the world is just like a genocide. What an idiot.

                                      3. re: Sam Fujisaka

                                        Very well said, Sam.

                                        The problem with Alice is that, like many other extremely wealthy people, she simply no longer has a feet-on-the-ground understanding of what it's like to have a job outside the food world, most especially outside the extremely-rarefied circles she travels in. Like Britney Spears, she is world-renowned celebrity, and no longer has the luxury of an objective outside opinion.

                                        To much of the world, she comes off as extremely arrogant and ignorant, regardless of her intentions. I'm one of the many currently being seriously affected by the economy's downturn, and while I try my level best to grow my own vegetables and buy the most nutrition for my money, I still feel like she's talking down to me with her every word. It's something I feel deep inside me, having grown up with many weeks where my mom served beans, cornbread, soup and -- if we were lucky -- hamburger gravy on toast. I know poor. Really well.

                                        I don't like being lectured about how great her life is. I'm sorry, but that's exactly what I hear every time she opens her yap. It's a visceral reaction, and Bourdain obviously gets it too.

                                        To get into religion here, this is why I can't explain to my Apple-user-only friends why other people find them so obnoxious. Alice Waters is that insufferably-smug-and-so-so-very-hipper-than-thou Justin Long in the commercials.

                                        1. re: dmd_kc

                                          I doubt very much that Alice Waters is "extremely wealthy." Comfortably well off, perhaps. And she may be smug, but she's not "hipper than thou" -- she's been doing the same thing for a long time, long before it was fashionable. She couldn't care less whether she's hip, except that it means more people are paying attention to her cause.

                                          1. re: dmd_kc

                                            I, too, suspect that she is not extremely wealthy, but just very comfortable.

                                            But, she has lived a life of privilege, compared to those who, say, "Choose to buy two pairs of Nikes" instead of grapes, starting with her French education. Frankly, I wonder if she was ever "in touch" and that, perhaps, it's her unique perspective that has enabled her to envision a future that the rest of us can't.

                                            But, I think when she goes on TV and characterizes a meal prepared on a spoon over the open flame in the brick fireplace in her kitchen as "simple" I think she's demonstrating that she doesn't really understand how ordinary folks live, let alone the poorest among us. Stahl specifically raised the issue of elitism with Waters and this brick fireplace meal is how she responds. It looks like Waters makes bad choices, too. Honestly, why is it okay for her to call poor people to task for their poor choices, but not be accountable for hers?

                                            I love Chez Panisse, Waters' books, some of her amazing projects like Edible Schoolyard. Every time I'm in Berkeley, I try to eat at Chez Panisse. I own several of her books. I love that someone is championing the idea that everyone should eat fresh, beautiful vegetables. I just don't like the undercurrent of her message that poor people struggle because they make bad choices, with excess of Nikes and such.

                                            As far as Anthony Bourdain, his whole bad boy thing is getting really old. I'm ready for his 15 minutes to be over.

                                            ~TDQ

                                            1. re: The Dairy Queen

                                              I agree about Anthony Bourdain. Could he try any harder to be cool? I doubt his name would be in the consciousness of Alice Waters if she were to come up with a list of 10 things that bother her. Wonder if that would further annoy him?

                                            2. re: dmd_kc

                                              Alice Waters isn't wealthy. Chez Panisse lost money for years, more or less broke even for a while, and didn't turn a serious profit until 2000, when they started running it like a business. Waters owns only a small share of the restaurant, and I'm sure has some nice residuals from the books, but for the past 15 years she has put most of her energy into nonprofit efforts rather than following the celebrity-chef route that made some of her friends rich (e.g. Wolfgang Puck, who knocked off her Chez Panisse Cafe concept for Spago and then branched out into frozen pizza).

                                              1. re: dmd_kc

                                                Yah, but Macs are soooooooooo much better than PCs '-)

                                                1. re: linguafood

                                                  I like Anthony Bourdain, but he *is* being flown around the world and being paid for a TV show. He can paint himself as a grubby bad boy outsider all he wants, but I don't think he's had to struggle for money in a looong time. I also don't believe he spends his time eating horrible processed food and suspect his eating habits are far closer to AW's in substance than he'd like to admit.

                                            3. Bourdain is grabbing his 15 minutes, and we all know it. I like watching his show but it is running out of juice and the snarkiness will only carry him so far. So let's not give him any more cultural significance than he really carries.

                                              sar•casm
                                              (sär'kāz'əm)
                                              n.
                                              1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
                                              2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
                                              3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
                                              4. See Bourdain, Anthony

                                              [Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]

                                              2 Replies
                                              1. re: fresnohotspot

                                                The 15 minutes is going into it's 10th year. Like it or not Bourdain is already a significant figure in the culture.

                                                1. re: KTinNYC

                                                  I fantasize about having a job like his, and your'e right he has been around a long time. But part of the fantasy revolves around not having to be taken seriously beyond comments like 'that tastes really good' or 'this is the way it has been prepared for generations'. He skates over the deep stuff and I like him for the lack of pretense.