Bourdain steps back into Ruhlman's chrome sandbox, and drops the simultaneously oafish and righteous science like only Tony can. On one hand, he sticks up for the nameless army of mainly Latino cooks who, night in, night out, actually realize the visions of the Beard honorees:
I explained that I would be an enthusiastic supporter and participant
of all things Beard when and if I saw some kind of an effort to
acknowledge the people who are actually doing the cooking in this
country--the between 30 and 70% of restaurant employees of Mexican and
Latino origin--of varying legal status. I was thinking a few bucks set
aside for free para-legal advice. Maybe a widely accessible library.
English lessons.
On the other hand, he gets it twisted. Rants against the Beard are probably mostly a Good Thing, but the above rant is inspired by this affront:
We like famous chefs just fine--especially if we're handing'em the
Cuisinart/Vulcan/Fiji Water Humanitarian Award--but who are these nasty
cook creatures we keep hearing rumors of?" The $400 dollar a pop
awards--where, traditionally, chefs and cooks from all over the country
are "invited" (in a Carlo Gambino sense of the word) to contribute food
and labor and personnel for a grand tasting clusterfuck near the
ceremony, were, until recently, held at the Marriott Marquis in Times
Square. This venue had the appropriate--one would think--virtue of
actually having a fucking KITCHEN. Presumably--and I'm just guessing
here--COOKS like-when laboring for free to put their restaurant's best
foot forward and bring honor to their clans--to have an actual KITCHEN.
You know..that place where they actually COOK?
Not this year, friends. This year, it has been decided that in favor
of bigger and swankier accomodations for the self congratulatory nearly
all-white attendees, that the cooks can take it in their collective
poop-chute. At The new venue, Avery Fisher Hall, only hot boxes,
induction tops and propane burners are allowed. Reheats only!
Yah, that sucks, but it is not clear how the lack of Garland ranges is discriminatory. I'm all for kicking against the pricks, but as Scott Norwood can tell you, when you're kicking, aim is important. Also, as predicted, some other posts in this sandbox have denounced Puck's foie ban as a publicity stunt. I think that might well be true, but Bourdain's advocacy here might well have similarly mixed motives.
Yah, that sucks, but it is not clear how the lack of Garland ranges is discriminatory. I'm all for kicking against the pricks, but as Scott Norwood can tell you, when you're kicking, aim is important. Also, as predicted, some other posts in this sandbox have denounced Puck's foie ban as a publicity stunt. I think that might well be true, but Bourdain's advocacy here might well have similarly mixed motives. 
Comments