The Good Rabbi's Blog

As everyone knows, there are three holy seasons in my life - the annual chase for the Stanley Cup, World Cup (every few years), but most importantly, the NCAA post-season college basketball tournament. Well, March madness starts today! As such, I'm posting my brackets (PDF). We'll see how everything shapes up. A few notes:

First, you'll notice that I have three number 1 seeds going to the final four. While normally, I wouldn't put more than two there, I believe that this year the number 1 seeds are particularly strong, with one exception.

That would be Memphis. Memphis is an extremely overrated team that plays in a weak conference. I think they're going down fairly hard fairly early.

On that note, I have Tennessee losing to Butler in the second round. Tennessee has shown some very worrying cracks lately that lead me to believe that they won't go very far in the tournament.

I think that Wisconsin is the dark horse this year. They certainly will not be taking the crown, but I think they will probably knock out Georgetown, and (dare I say it?) they stand a decent shot at knocking out Kansas.

All told, I think this is Carolina's year. Hopefully they won't fuck it up.

Yesterday, I posted my analysis of the 2008 election thus far from the Republican perspective. Today, I'd like to focus on the Democratic perspective. Before I continue with my look at the two main candidates (curiously enough, Mike Gravel is still in the race, despite the fact that he's basically polling exactly even with me, and I'm not even running), I'd like to address a main difference between the Republican and Democrat approaches to primaries. In keeping with their general philosophy of sharing, holding hands, and singing Up With People! songs, the Democrats tend to split the state and district delegates proportionally. Republicans tend to be more about winning, so their primaries are winner-take-all (i.e. if a candidate wins a state, they get all the delegates from that state). Figuring out the delegate counts involves an abacus, and a very complex formula, that closely rivals handicaping college basketball teams during the Holy month (which may explain why my previous attempt showed that the Carolina Tar Heels would secure the nomination). Because math is not exactly the forte of California hippies, the San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent article that explains how this all works.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the big news that came with Super Tuesday is that believe it or not, Obama seems to have overtaken Hillary's delegate count. Whether or not this turns out to be true (remember, the math here is hard), I think that I have to give the man his dues and point out the obvious: Obama won super Tuesday, hands down. I say this because Hillary Clinton has over a hundred super delegates (delegates to the convention that are not bound to a particular candidate), and is still barely ahead, if at all, in the overall delegate count. She has all the machinery and the operatives the Democratic party has to offer, including the ultimate political juggernaut in the party, her husband. Even with all this, Obama continues to show increasingly stronger results. What's really telling is the margins between Clinton's and Obama's respective votes. Clinton only won the states that she needed to survive super Tuesday (although the sheer size of New York and California obscure that fact). The momentum has definitely shifted to favour Obama, as even in the states he did not carry, he was right behind Clinton. Clinton won California because of a deliberate attempt to stoke a disdain for Blacks among Latinos and Asian Americans. Amongst White voters (even women) he pulled even with Clinton in California. In most of the toss-up states (Utah, Missouri, Minnesota) Obama has won handily. He even managed to get at least 40% of the vote in Clinton's adopted home state of New York, came in under ten points behind Clinton in New Jersey, and out-and-out won Connecticut (both of which are in New York's back yard). All of this was done with about two weeks for Obama to campaign in states where the Clinton had name recognition and a comfortable double-digit lead for months. He's managed to bridge the racial divide in the south, as well has win states such as Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota, that are not exactly known for their huge Black populations.

Continue reading "A Rabbinical Analysis of the 2008 Election, Part II" »

Well, the 2008 presidential election, which, curiously enough, started in 2006, has entered a new phase. Instead of the 47 people that originally declared their candidacy, we've now been whittled down to two real candidates and two fake candidates in each party. There's been a lot of posturing going on, analysing the results, so I thought I'd add my own perspective. I'll start today with the results of the Republican party.

Now that Mitt Romney has effectively ended his campaign, the nomination has basically been handed to John McCain, which is just as well, because he is the most qualified of all the Republican candidates. McCain stands an excellent chance of winning the presidency in the fall, but first, he'll have to unite his party. A lot of the conservative talk-show windbags have been spouting off about how McCain is not a real conservative, and is not a real Republican (practically Democrat, blah, blah, blah). This drives me crazy. I will be the first to say that these blubbering vaginas certainly have a right to their opinions, but they do not have a right to spread untruths over the airwaves. So in addition to an excellent op-ed about the hypocrisy of McCain's critics, I'd like to add some thoughts, courtesy of Michael Medved. I think his analysis is spot-on.

I would also like to say that I think this so-called Republican civil war is much shallower than people think. There is something rather ridiculous about people that want to prosecute the war in Iraq, but threaten to vote for Hillary Clinton in a hissy-fit because they don't like John McCain. These windbags are not the only ones that are sharpening their knives. People like Dick Armey and Phil Gramm see this as an opportunity to expunge the Republican party of those that hijacked the party earlier in the decade (people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist). I think that Senator McCain will soon consolidate power and ranks within his party, and will put this to bed for good. More on that later. Now, the top six lies that people say about John McCain.

Continue reading "A Rabbinical Analysis of the 2008 Election" »

For the record, there is nothing remotely Russian about these recipes. I call it "Russian" because these twists on some old stock favourites in my repertoire were inspired by two Russian friends of mine (more on that later). So before all of the culinary readers write in, keep that in mind. :-)

This past week, the weather here in our nation's capital has been unseasonably warm (given that it's January). As such, I determined that a little bit of grilling would be in order. Since the lovely market down the street from me had a sale on salmon, I bought a couple fillets, and I decided to cedar smoke them. Apart from this, I had no idea what I was going to make, or what kind of glaze to use for the salmon. Here's where my Russian friends come in.

My friend Olga has many talents. She's an amazing salsa dancer, she has excellent taste in fashion (especially shoes), and she's a very crafty person. One of her "unsung" talents, however, is that this girl can open her refrigerator, look at a number of items in it that are seemingly unconnected, and concoct a meal (and a good one at that). This kind of improvisation was the inspiration for the side dish I made.

I opened up my fridge, and saw I had some extra firm tofu, some Swiss chard, half of an onion, and some white wine. I also had some leftover cinnamon-chipotle rub that I had made for some steaks not too long ago, and some fresh garlic. After cutting, washing, and spin-drying the swiss chard (stems and leaves), rubbing the tofu, and searing it on the grill, and dicing up the onion and garlic, I was in business. I heated some olive oil and sautéed the onion and garlic. I cubed up the seared tofu, and added it to the pan with the swiss chard. After sautéing for a minute or so, I added some more of the leftover rub (which contained both salt and pepper for seasoning), and some of the white wine, and lowered the heat and covered it. Meanwhile, I went to tend to the salmon.

Olga has a twin sister Anna that I'm also pretty friendly with. Despite our both having started our professional lives as economists, we've both managed to wander into the culinary arena. I was in pretty constant contact with her while I was in culinary school, and now she's in culinary school up at the Culinary Institute of America. In addition to sharing a lot of the crafty talents that Olga has, Anna has been one of the quiet inspirations behind some of the winning items I've put on menus recently. She has a particular gift (even if she may not know it) for balancing flavour profiles in order to create combinations that really engage the palette. Remember that watermelon & feta cheese salad I served at my wedding? Guess who turned me on to that?

In a saucepan, I mixed some maple syrup, with some grapefruit juice, roasted garlic, balsamic vinegar, salt, pepper, and a wee bit of olive oil. I brought it to a boil, then reduced it to a simmer, and let it reduce for a while, until it reached a glaze consistency. Some of this would be used as a basting liquid, and some of it would be for the finished product.

Anyway, I have always liked cedar smoking salmon. It produces a light kiss of smoke that perfectly complements the salmon, whereas most smoked fish dishes have an element of burning building. I've used this recipe with much success over the years, and I've managed to pass this on to various people, including a certain disgracefully-aging gentleman. Basically, I soak a cedar plank in either water or wine for at least an hour (you really want the liquid to penetrate it so it smoulders and smokes, instead of having a dry fire in your grill which, needless to say, will destroy your fish). Once the grill is good and hot (whether you're using charcoal, or propane with propane accessories), you want to put the plank directly over the coals or the burner. When the wood just starts to smoke, put the fish on the plank skin side down, and let it cook for about 10 minutes per inch of thickness, or about 9-12 minutes per pound.

When salmon is correctly cooked, it should be creamy in the middle - often people think that this is undercooked, but that would be mistaken. Baste with the glaze every now and then, but resist the temptation to keep opening the grill. The smoke has to work its magic. You'll want to take the fish off (plank and all) when it registers a temperature of about 135 degrees (it will continue cooking when you take it off, so let it rest for a few minutes with some foil on top). I serve it right off the plank, as the skin sticks to the plank, so people take what they want, and the skin remains. Pour some of the remaining glaze over the top, and you're ready to go.

To further toast my Russian friends, I paired this meal with an extra-chilled vodka grapefruit martini, as I was in the mood for a cocktail. If you're in the mood for wine, a chilled glass of either Sauvignon Blanc or Gewürztraminer.

November is Peanut Butter Lovers' Month, so I thought I'd post a recipe to celebrate. Since very few of you are into a cream of peanut butter soup, I thought that a good dessert recipe is in order. Enjoy!

Ingredients
3 oz (¼ cup plus 2 Tbsp) Unsweetend (Baker's) Chocolate, finely chopped
8 Tbsp Unsalted Butter, cut into chunks
1 Cup Sugar
½ Tsp Baking Soda
¼ Tsp Salt
1 Tsp Vanilla Extract
⅔ Cup All-Purpose Flour
2 Large Eggs
⅓ Cup Peanut Butter (at room temperature)

Instructions

1. Adjust the oven rack to the middle position and preheat the oven to 350°F.

2. Coat an 8-inch baking dish with cooking spray or shortening.

3. Melt the chocolate and butter in a small bowl in the microwave or in a metal bowl set over a pan of simmering water. Stir the mixture occasionally to combine. Once melted, let the mixture cool for several minutes.

4. Whisk the sugar, baking soda, salt, eggs, and vanilla together in a medium bowl until combined, about 15 seconds. Whisk in the chocolate/butter mixture until smooth. Stir in the flour until no streaks of flour remain (be sure to scrape the bottom of the bowl). Scrape the batter evenly into the prepared pan.

5. Drop the peanut butter in small dollops over the batter. Without touching the bottom of the pan, run a paring knife through the batter to create swirls.

6. Bake until a toothpick inserted halfway between the edge and the center of the pan comes out clean, 22 to 27 minutes.

7. Let the brownies sit in the pan (outside of the oven) for about 10 minutes. Turn out brownie block onto a wire rack to cool completely. When cooled completely, cut into 2 inch squares and enjoy!

Yesterday I witnessed something extremely bizarre. As some of you know, I've recently started working at a local brewery here in our nation's capital for some side income. Yesterday, there was a fairly large party that came in for dinner and drinks. During the course of their sojourn there, they would occasionally break into a large cheer while looking up at one of the several televisions on the floor. Since I was working, and couldn't see the tv's I assumed that they we're cheering for a team, and watching a sports game (most likely football), as that's what's normally on those tv's. I had the occasion to go out on the floor, and to my utter astonishment, those idiots were watching Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Setting aside the fact that Chris Matthews is a moron who plays a journalist on tv (really, the man is a complete fraud - check out his bio sometime), who cheers for one of these televised screaming matches? What a bunch of pinko commie liberal hippies. I guess I'm just not the Washington type. Really, all these clowns I run into around town (especially Democrats) all think they're saving the world, and none of them realise just how intellectually vapid they are. I mean seriously, there is absolutely zero thought and intellectual realism in their arguments. The Republicans can be just as bad too. They defend ideologies and policies that are so damn low on the totem pole (given all the problems we face), but still think I'm wrong to advocate a more intellectual approach. I actually think things through, and while my reactions to things may not be the most popular (or popular at all, for that matter), they are always the right response (in terms of what is best course of action).

People like Chris Matthews just foster a climate where people compete not for who has the best ideas, but simply who can scream the loudest. This type of environment leads to a world where we substitute shrillness for intellectualism. We either need to collectively start thinking again, or I guess I just have to get out of this town, as it just simply isn't me...

As some of you may remember a while back, I posted a video that was a ghetto version of the Charlie Brown Valentine's Day special. While it was incredibly offensive, I found it incredibly funny. Well, seeing how it's Halloween today, and last night ABC aired It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!, I thought I'd post a ghetto version of that special as well. While I'm at it, I missed Ramadan, so the Ghetto Charlie Brown Ramadan special is included as well for no extra charge! :-)

It's also worth noting that these are super NSFW, and generally in very poor taste, so if you're in an office, use headphones or turn your volume way down (or just wait until you get home). You've been warned. That having been said, this is some of the funniest shit I've seen in a while...

Well, here's an interesting topic (albeit a couple days behind schedule). The other night on CNBC's Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, Donny had Ann Coulter on. During the course of the interview, Donny asked her what her vision of heaven would be like. She responded that it would be "like New York during the Republican convention." As odd as I find that, she went on to open her mouth and insert her foot. Describing everyone as "good Christians" prompted Donny Deutsch to ask her about other peoples, and whether or not they'd be included, specifically Jews (Donny is Jewish). She basically said that good evangelical Christians (like herself) just want Jews to perfect themselves by becoming Christian.

Now, I have two reactions to this. First, Ann Coulter has always substituted shrillness for intellect, and has always been quite the publicity whore. She doesn't care whether it's good or bad, as long as people are talking about her. For that reason alone, I'm sort of reluctant to post this, as I feel like I'm playing into her hands that way (not that I have a huge readership, but still). I'm not sure why people are surprised that she made this comment, as she ALWAYS tends to say things specifically to get a rise out of people. One of these days we'll just ignore her.

The second reaction I have to this, is that she's actually right (I bet you didn't see that one coming). Now, I'm not defending Ms. Coulter here, but she articulated perfectly exactly how most evangelical Christians see Jews. See, in particular there are two verses of the New Testatment that evangelicals really hold to. First, in John 14:6 (KJV), Jesus tells Thomas (his disciple):

...I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.

For by one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,

In this way, many evangelicals think that Jews are just about there, and need to take that one final step to become, well, perfected. I'm sure that many will call Ann an anti-semite, and this would be a tremendous mistake. She's not anti-semitic, she's simply stating (quite articulately at that) what a lot of people think.

This sort of religious dick-waving (my god has a bigger dick than your god) is completely pointless, and anyone that gets involved in it is just proving that they are backward tribal people who wouldn't know modernity if it bit them in the ass. The best response here is to simply ignore both her, and the professional victims that will undoubtedly call her an anti-semite (rumour has it that Abraham Foxman is on his way across the country, so he can sneak into a lecture and be deeply offended, as is his usual M.O.). I hope that people are better than this, but to be honest, I haven't been very impressed by either the Jewish people I've seen or the evangelicals. Hopefully they'll prove me wrong.

Well, it seems that a hangman's noose has been found at Columbia University. Of course, everyone's going all ape-shit again. This is in addition to the noose found at the Coast Guard Academy, the one found at the University of Maryland, and of course, the one that started it all in Jena, Louisiana.

Of course, rallies have been held, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the Black agitators have marched, and yet, everyone seems to be missing the two real questions that need to be answered: First, why, in 2007, do we still have an informal segregation that produces things such as "black bleachers" and a "white tree?" It doesn't surprise me that Sharpton, Jackson, and the rest of the crazies aren't focusing on this, as they're particularly poorly positioned to do so (remember Tawana Brawley?).

But even leaving this alone, the bigger question is who actually knows how to tie a noose, anyway? Does anyone else find it disturbing that people can't handle basic math, but they can tie nooses? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Note: Some of the images linked to below are somewhat suggestive (although quite tame). As such, please exercise caution if reading in an office. These links are marked with an NSFW notation.

When people find out that I’m a professional chef, they usually react by asking me one of two questions: What is your favourite restaurant in D.C.? or Who is your favourite chef on the Food Network? It’s somewhat irritating, but it’s something I’ve gotten used to. Recently, I was talking with some people about the state of television in general, so I thought I’d air my thoughts about the Food Network, and some of the “celebrity chefs” that make the rounds there.

Overall, the Food Network is a huge disappointment these days. It seems that the entire channel has jumped the shark. The last network to do this so spectacularly was MTV. Remember when the M actually stood for “music?” Now there’s nothing but ridiculous game and dating shows, and they’ve really backed away from their core mission. At its heart, the Food Network seems to be doing the same thing. Now, let me dispense with one thing right away: my objections to the current Food Network programming have nothing to do with my being a professional chef. I’m not objecting because the programming is “beneath my level.” I’m objecting because I believe the Food Network is straying from what originally made it great: education.

The real reason that people watch the food Network in the first place is to learn something. Whether that something is how to make a soufflé, or what the differences and merits are of different kinds of charcoal, the goal is the same – learning something that you didn’t know before, that will be useful to you in some way. There were lots of times when I’d have the Food Network on in the background as I worked from home, as I used to do before I became a chef. Now I wouldn’t even consider it.

There seems to have been a real tectonic shift of late and some of the “old dinosaurs” of the network (Bobby Flay, Mario Batali, etc.) are being phased out in favour of younger, “fresher” people that, while physically attractive, have a troubling lack of experience working with food. Again, this is not a huge invective about how Rachael Ray can’t cook (that will come later), as much as it shows a real shift in focus network-wide that I find troubling. Instead of a focus on food, there is a preponderance of reality shows meant to pick various food personalities, Iron Chefs, etc. I mean, for Christ’s sake, Al Roker has a show on the Food Network. AL ROKER! He’s not even a food eater these days; he’s just a weatherman, and a bad one at that. As for Rachael Ray, she needs to concentrate on learning how to cook; not just running several shows, magazines, and men’s magazine photo shoots (see here, here, and here – NSFW). I really do hope that they get their act together and get back to what made them big in the first place, even if they do have to hire some new celebrity chefs to do it. It's worth noting, however, that there are aspects of their current stock (and old guard) that have not been explored. For example, Mario Batali regularly does segments for PBS where he explores his other great passion: Spain & Spanish food (weird, huh? Did you know he also has a line of grilling cookbooks, especially one that caters to NASCAR fans?). To me, this is a whole untapped area of expertise...

During my morning news roundup today, I came across this article from the BBC News Service. It seems that this guy in North Carolina, who had his leg amputated above the knee, stored his leg in a smoker, so that he "could be buried whole." The smoker was stored in a storage unit, and the man fell behind on his payments for that unit. As such, the storage facility auctioned off his belongings and all the contents, including the leg.

Now the man who bought the smoker is claiming that he is the rightful owner of the leg, and he stands to make a good amount of money from it (given that Halloween is coming). Naturally the leg's former owner disagrees. It's obvious to me that the man doesn't live in North Carolina anymore, because if he did, the fight would be over the smoker, not the leg...

Well, it certainly has been a while. During the two and a half months since my last posting here I sealed the deal and went and got married. During this time, I obviously had some higher priorities than blogging, so I went about taking care of them. Now, after our wedding, our "mini-moon" in the finger lakes region of New York state, my cousin's wedding, and the Jewish holidays, things are finally starting to settle down, so I'm back.

The wedding went off really well, if I may say so myself. Besides our Rabbi and band being late, everything came together nicely. Not bad for a project manager turned chef! The ceremony was really nice, and the party was pretty hopping! Even a certain disgracefully aging gentleman was seen actually enjoying himself! Pictures are being sorted, and will be up in the photo gallery before too long. Now that I'm back around and back to usual tricks, I thought I'd offer a few thoughts on weddings, married life, etc. (not that you asked, but then again, everyone is entitled to my opinion).

In the beginning came the proposal. Shortly thereafter I expressed my desire to elope. Not because I wanted to shirk family, religion, etc. but because I thought it would be more special for the two people that counted most - us. Needless to say, the woman didn't really cotton to that idea, and we wound up planning a wedding. Of course, the whole planning process was an eye-opening experience. I learned a lot about the way that people behave (or don't behave, depending on your viewpoint) in situations like this. The woman and I went out of our way to minimise the cost for guests and participants, yet that didn't stop people from complaining, or from simply taking advantage of my good nature. Then again, there were some individuals that I learned are really close friends and confidants, no matter what my relationship with them is. All in all, I think I learned a lot about people in this whole venture.

Continue reading "Back From The Dead" »

My computer died a few months ago, and I've finally gotten around to installing some of the stuff that is needed, so I put up some pictures in my photo gallery. Included in these pictures are photos from Amber's going away happy hour, our trip to Austin to visit Yossi, Basia, Gabby, and Ellie, and our trip to New York City/Albany to see Ameer, Gayle, and Sophia. Enjoy!

Yesterday I read an interesting paper on the efficacy of terrorism:

This study analyzes the political plights of twenty-eight terrorist groups -- the complete list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The data yield two unexpected findings. First, the groups accomplished their forty-two policy objectives only 7 percent of the time. Second, although the groups achieved certain types of policy objectives more than others, the key variable for terrorist success was a tactical one: target selection. Groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumbered attacks on military targets systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature.

The author believes that correspondent inference theory explains this. Basically, the theory says that people infer the motives of an actor based on the consequences of the action. So people assume that the motives of a terrorist are wanton death and destruction, and not the stated aims of the terrorist group:

The theory posited here is that terrorist groups that target civilians are unable to coerce policy change because terrorism has an extremely high correspondence. Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer from the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent citizens, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- the objectives of the terrorist group. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.

This certainly explains a great deal about the U.S.'s reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Many people -- along with our politicians and press -- believe that al Qaeda terrorism is different, and they're just out to kill us all. (In fact, I'm sure I'll get blog comments along those lines.) The paper examines this belief: where it came from, how it manifested itself, and why it is wrong.

Well, as usual, it's been a while. Between my job searching, my traveling, my wedding planning, and fixing my bathroom sink, I've been swamped lately. Now, we've finally turned the corner on the most meddlesome part of planning a wedding: invitations. This leads to my first rant of the evening.

Why is it that Microsoft has to make everything so damn complicated? We have about 153 invitations going out, each with two envelopes. I figured that I could just set up an envelope document in Word (where each "page" would be an envelope layout), then just stick a stack of our envelopes in the printer, and print the whole thing all at once. As I found out, Word doesn't support that, so we had to do each envelope one at a time. Pain in the ass, I say. Now, I know what you're thinking - why didn't you just use labels? Well, put plainly, because my fiancee is weird. I wanted to, since each page prints thirty addresses, but well, there comes a point when you just can't understand what the hell brought you to this point in the first place.

Second, I've recently come to the conclusion that the majority of people in this world are simply too stupid to breathe. As evidence of this, I put forward the iPhone. Can we please stop talking about this on every site, at every minute of the day? I've watched people spend hours or even days in line, waiting to spend $600 on a phone that has yet to prove itself. It's not like you're waiting in line for tickets to an incredible concert or something that you know will sell out in a matter of minutes. You're waiting in line to buy a phone. A particularly expensive phone at that. An expensive phone that has never been proven in the marketplace. As anyone that has any experience with anything electronic will tell you, you never buy the first version of anything. Wait a while, until Apple fixes the inevitable problems, and then buy the next version. It's incredibly stupid. Personally, I prefer the jPhone

These days, your Rabbi has been all over the busy. As weird as it may seem, in the course of one and a half weeks, both my cell phone and my computer have died. The cell phone was replaced, but since all my numbers were in the computer, that will take a little bit more time. I've managed to get everything up and running, so I can continue to keep in touch with people, job search, and do what needs to be done to plan for my upcoming wedding.

However, these past few weeks have been very busy, and full of travel. I started in New York City, visiting my brother, his wife, and their new daughter. Then I went out to Austin to visit the fiancee's brother, his wife, and their new daughter (and their slightly older daughter, who I admittedly love to death). Now I'm back in the land of pinko commie liberal hippies, visiting some friends from culinary school. I'll head back to D.C. early next week, and then take a quick jaunt up to upstate New York for a wedding recognisance mission.

Today, though, I must admit it's very cool, and somewhat surreal to be back in the Bay Area again. I sometimes forget how beautiful this area is, and also how crazy it is. In some ways, the area hasn't changed a bit, and in other ways, it's phenomenally different. I've been looking forward to this trip for a little while, so watch for more updates. Next week, I'll also post a bunch of pictures that have been piling up on my camera.

I'm sorry for the delay in my posting of late. I got laid off a little while ago, and most of my time has been spent trying to fix that situation. In addition, this is the first post coming to you from the new build of my computer (which conveniently died the other day). I do have a few posts that I'll be getting up in the coming days, so keep an eye out!

In the meantime, I'll start you off with something that is near and dear to my life these days. I found an article in the New York Times the other day, about people like me that went to a top-tier culinary programme, only to find themselves working in some other industry, or working in a place that they don't really want to be at, because the weight of the student debt is particularly heavy. While I have a good amount of debt that came with my schooling, I still think things could have been much worse, and I did come out of the whole thing with some mad skillz in the kitchen. Now I just have to figure out where to take it...