Yours is the laugh that makes me want to say silly things;
To sing your name with pleasant chords;
And kiss my hand while pretending it’s yours.
Yours is the smile that sets me at ease;
A hat for my heart that won’t let it freeze.
I wish I could shrink you and keep you with me;
Get hugs when I need them and scratches for free.
I wish that our snuggles would go on without end;
With no worries and flurries of things to attend.
I’m glad for your birthday we’re going away;
You love to travel and eat good soufflé.
Someday we’ll have time to go back to France;
Drink wine in Bordeaux while learning to dance.
Together we’ll sail down the Chesapeake Bay;
We’ll stop in St. Michaels and buy a cafe.
You’ll make the chili and bake funny cakes;
I’ll smoke the meats and cook all the steaks.
Then we’ll move on to London or maybe to Greece;
Or maybe to Sweden, Tahiti or Nice.
Wherever you want, I’m happy to go;
Whenever you’re leaving, I’ll be in tow.
I don’t need a job, a house or a car;
I don’t need my bongos or my guitar.
I just need your love, your lips and your thighs;
And maybe your hair, your hips and some pies.
I do need those cheeks that draw me so near;
The ones on your face (and the ones on your rear).
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thoughts on the Law
Yesterday afternoon I skimmed the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Strauss, et al. v. Horton, et al., in which the Court held that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible change to the California Constitution. Prop 8 was a ballot initiative that was approved by CA voters last November. It defined marriage as between a man and a woman, thus making gay marriage illegal. The main issue before the Court in Strauss was whether Prop 8 was a permissible amendment to the state Constitution or whether it was an impermissible revision of the Constitution, such that it could be accomplished only through legislative action. California law allows for the amendment of the state Constitution through ballot measures but requires legislative action for a wholesale revision of the Constitution.
Although the Court entertained various side issues and arguments, the lengthy majority opinion ultimately boils down to two points: (1) the Court’s determination that Californians had long ago agreed upon a very liberal process for amending the state Constitution through ballot initiatives; and (2) the Court’s determination that Prop 8 is not a wholesale revision of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but rather, carves out a narrow and limited exception to those rights. As a secondary issue, the Court held that Prop 8 does not apply retroactively, meaning all of the gay marriages that took place in CA before the measure was adopted remain valid.
What is most striking about the decision is the almost apologetic tone of the majority opinion. Justice George framed the issue thusly:
In other words, we don’t agree with Prop 8, but our personal opinions can’t get in the way of our task of impartially interpreting and applying the law. That sentiment won’t pacify gay rights advocates, but it sounds fair enough, right? We don’t want our judges deciding cases based on personal biases or political preferences.
But is it really possible for judges to interpret the law impartially? What is it that we even mean when we say that judges should be impartial?
I suppose we mean that we want our judges to “follow the law” and not decide cases based on their own beliefs. Of course, we know that deciding a case is rarely as simple as following the law. For that to be true, there would have to be an applicable law or legal authority for every situation that a judge could conceivably come across, no ambiguities in the applicable law, and no conflicting or competing authorities that could apply equally in a given case.
As you can see from Strauss, the reality is that appellate judges must determine what the law dictates in situations where the governing legal authority is contested between the litigants.
So then, how should judges “apply the law” when presented with a new or disputed question of law?
In Strauss, the Court peered back in time so to speak and considered what Californians intended when they created a Constitution that could be amended by a simple majority vote on a ballot measure. This approach of determining constitutional issues by looking at what the drafters/framers intended is known as Originalism, and is currently espoused by Justice Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Originalists believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that was determined at the time it was drafted. Similarly, textualists, like Justice Scalia, believe that the interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.
There are both practical and philosophical problems with the Originalist/Textualist approach.
One practical problem is that what the drafters intended at the time they created the constitution is not always known, and so judges are apt to speculate about what they might well have intended, often by reference to the language of the constitution or law. Circular, I know.
A second problem is that the intentions of the drafters of a constitution may not be uniform. For example, the right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, meant one thing to Thomas Jefferson and something else to John Adams. (I know this from watching the HBO miniseries on John Adams.) Indeed, our Constitution was a compromise between various people of greatly differing political opinions. How then can judges be expected to look to the framers' intentions to resolve questions of constitutional law?
An even more significant problem is the issue of why we should hold the framers’ intentions above our own moral judgment. The framers lived hundreds of years ago, had different values than we do, and faced different issues than we do. So why should we look to them to determine what our laws should be today?
Cynical legal realists will argue that Originalism and Textualism are merely methods by which conservative judges are able to justify the decisions they want to reach. This makes sense to me. If you are looking for a way to keep the world from changing, align yourself with a theory of judicial interpretation that is bootstrapped to the perceived intentions of people who lived in the 18th century.
In fairness, cynical legal realists will argue that all judicial interpretation is a process by which judges attempt find ways to justify the decisions they want to reach.
That’s not to say that cases are decided arbitrarily by judges without regard to precedent, or that judges are always able to reach decisions that comport with their personal preferences. Judges cannot simply ignore precedent. If an “activist judge” were to start deciding cases based on nothing more than a personal agenda, and without regard for precedent, the judge would be overruled, scrutinized by his peers, slammed in law review articles, and ultimately removed from the bench. So then what is it that judges do? They walk a fine line between ruling in a way that is consistent with their moral conscience and creating a plausibly valid legal opinion given the legal precedent.
I find nothing offensive about the inherent tension in the law between deference to precedent and the moral conscience of judges. If our judicial system did not require that deference be given to precedent, the law would, of course, be inconsistent to the point of being incoherent, and would at times be radically at odds with the prevailing values of society. On the other hand, judges can rarely just "follow precedent" and often have to decide cases based on their own notions of fairness. The statement that judges should never "make law" reflects both ignorance of how legal decisions are reached and a preference for some nonsensical theory of judicial interpretation. Do we really think judges should be deciding cases by divining the dictates of natural law? How does that work exactly? Or perhaps judges should be trying to ascertain the intentions of people who lived hundreds of years ago and, oh by the way, owned slaves. That’s just silliness.
So, maybe instead of saying that we want judges who are impartial—because we know that that’s an absurd idea—we should say that we want judges who are without prejudice, who are honest, who are intelligent, and who are wise.
With all that in mind, it was interesting to read President Obama’s remarks about Judge Sotomayor and the role of the judiciary yesterday morning. He said:
Obama makes a tenuous but clever distinction between judges who bring an ideology to the bench and judges who bring a certain experience to the bench. What's the difference? The difference is that "ideology" is a conservative buzz word for "judicial activism." Clearly, Obama's second point about valuing judges who have "a commitment to impartial justice" is merely his way placating conservatives. He's a smart lawyer and a smart politician. He knows that, whether we like it or not, judges make law. The law is, as cynical legal realists say, whatever judges say it is.
Although the Court entertained various side issues and arguments, the lengthy majority opinion ultimately boils down to two points: (1) the Court’s determination that Californians had long ago agreed upon a very liberal process for amending the state Constitution through ballot initiatives; and (2) the Court’s determination that Prop 8 is not a wholesale revision of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but rather, carves out a narrow and limited exception to those rights. As a secondary issue, the Court held that Prop 8 does not apply retroactively, meaning all of the gay marriages that took place in CA before the measure was adopted remain valid.
What is most striking about the decision is the almost apologetic tone of the majority opinion. Justice George framed the issue thusly:
First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.
In other words, we don’t agree with Prop 8, but our personal opinions can’t get in the way of our task of impartially interpreting and applying the law. That sentiment won’t pacify gay rights advocates, but it sounds fair enough, right? We don’t want our judges deciding cases based on personal biases or political preferences.
But is it really possible for judges to interpret the law impartially? What is it that we even mean when we say that judges should be impartial?
I suppose we mean that we want our judges to “follow the law” and not decide cases based on their own beliefs. Of course, we know that deciding a case is rarely as simple as following the law. For that to be true, there would have to be an applicable law or legal authority for every situation that a judge could conceivably come across, no ambiguities in the applicable law, and no conflicting or competing authorities that could apply equally in a given case.
As you can see from Strauss, the reality is that appellate judges must determine what the law dictates in situations where the governing legal authority is contested between the litigants.
So then, how should judges “apply the law” when presented with a new or disputed question of law?
In Strauss, the Court peered back in time so to speak and considered what Californians intended when they created a Constitution that could be amended by a simple majority vote on a ballot measure. This approach of determining constitutional issues by looking at what the drafters/framers intended is known as Originalism, and is currently espoused by Justice Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Originalists believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that was determined at the time it was drafted. Similarly, textualists, like Justice Scalia, believe that the interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.
There are both practical and philosophical problems with the Originalist/Textualist approach.
One practical problem is that what the drafters intended at the time they created the constitution is not always known, and so judges are apt to speculate about what they might well have intended, often by reference to the language of the constitution or law. Circular, I know.
A second problem is that the intentions of the drafters of a constitution may not be uniform. For example, the right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, meant one thing to Thomas Jefferson and something else to John Adams. (I know this from watching the HBO miniseries on John Adams.) Indeed, our Constitution was a compromise between various people of greatly differing political opinions. How then can judges be expected to look to the framers' intentions to resolve questions of constitutional law?
An even more significant problem is the issue of why we should hold the framers’ intentions above our own moral judgment. The framers lived hundreds of years ago, had different values than we do, and faced different issues than we do. So why should we look to them to determine what our laws should be today?
Cynical legal realists will argue that Originalism and Textualism are merely methods by which conservative judges are able to justify the decisions they want to reach. This makes sense to me. If you are looking for a way to keep the world from changing, align yourself with a theory of judicial interpretation that is bootstrapped to the perceived intentions of people who lived in the 18th century.
In fairness, cynical legal realists will argue that all judicial interpretation is a process by which judges attempt find ways to justify the decisions they want to reach.
That’s not to say that cases are decided arbitrarily by judges without regard to precedent, or that judges are always able to reach decisions that comport with their personal preferences. Judges cannot simply ignore precedent. If an “activist judge” were to start deciding cases based on nothing more than a personal agenda, and without regard for precedent, the judge would be overruled, scrutinized by his peers, slammed in law review articles, and ultimately removed from the bench. So then what is it that judges do? They walk a fine line between ruling in a way that is consistent with their moral conscience and creating a plausibly valid legal opinion given the legal precedent.
I find nothing offensive about the inherent tension in the law between deference to precedent and the moral conscience of judges. If our judicial system did not require that deference be given to precedent, the law would, of course, be inconsistent to the point of being incoherent, and would at times be radically at odds with the prevailing values of society. On the other hand, judges can rarely just "follow precedent" and often have to decide cases based on their own notions of fairness. The statement that judges should never "make law" reflects both ignorance of how legal decisions are reached and a preference for some nonsensical theory of judicial interpretation. Do we really think judges should be deciding cases by divining the dictates of natural law? How does that work exactly? Or perhaps judges should be trying to ascertain the intentions of people who lived hundreds of years ago and, oh by the way, owned slaves. That’s just silliness.
So, maybe instead of saying that we want judges who are impartial—because we know that that’s an absurd idea—we should say that we want judges who are without prejudice, who are honest, who are intelligent, and who are wise.
With all that in mind, it was interesting to read President Obama’s remarks about Judge Sotomayor and the role of the judiciary yesterday morning. He said:
While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are few that stand out that I just want to mention.
First and foremost is a rigorous intellect -- a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.
Obama makes a tenuous but clever distinction between judges who bring an ideology to the bench and judges who bring a certain experience to the bench. What's the difference? The difference is that "ideology" is a conservative buzz word for "judicial activism." Clearly, Obama's second point about valuing judges who have "a commitment to impartial justice" is merely his way placating conservatives. He's a smart lawyer and a smart politician. He knows that, whether we like it or not, judges make law. The law is, as cynical legal realists say, whatever judges say it is.
Monday, May 04, 2009
On My Defeat to Meat
When it comes to food, I have the self-discipline of a hungry labrador. If you've ever owned a lab, you know that whether or not it's hungry, it'll gobble up everything you put in front of it. No matter how much food you put in its bowl, it will eat all of it. It could be as fat as a tick with legs that no longer touch the ground and still it will wiggle its way over to the dinner table and beg for scraps, eyes bulging out of its head and all. Labs, unlike smarter, more self-respecting breeds (like German Sheppards, for example), will even over-eat to the point of vomiting, if allowed.
Not many people have ever over-eaten to the point of vomiting. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've done it...twice.
So, considering my lack of self-discipline, it might have been a bit naive of me to think that I could go a month without eating meat. And, in fact, it was naive. My self-inflicted exile into vegetarianism came to an end this past weekend when I ate a delicious plate of halibut at Cafe Beaujolais on Friday night and then a slab of ribs on Sunday afternoon. I fell two weeks shy of my goal of making it one month without eating meat.
Why was I unable to meet my goal? Two things messed me up. First, in the middle of last week, I accidentally ate a chorizo-filled, deep-fried squash blossom. I guess technically I didn't accidentally eat it. I intentionally ate it not knowing that it was filled with chorizo. Anyway, I'd like to say that I spit it out and threw away the second bite, but it was freaking delicious so I ate it. After this happened, I kind of felt like I had failed in my quest and that I should just give up. But what really put me over the top was when Priya told me on Friday afternoon that she had eaten chicken for lunch and that she was done with the vegetarian diet. That was all the excuse I needed to quit.
What did I learn from my 2.5 weeks of vegetarianism? A few things, actually.
1. Cucumber sandwiches are a delicious alternative to meat sandwiches. All you need is sliced cucumber, mayonnaise (or cream cheese) and some salt and pepper. If you want to add some other fancy seasonings or a sprig of mint and/or basil, all the better. These are especially good on hot days with cold cucumbers. They taste like summertime. While I'm on sandwiches, let me add that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are the most underrated sandwiches in all of the sandwich kingdom. I used to eat them all the time as a kid but have only occassionaly eaten them as an adult. Turns out, they are still just as delicious.
2. Tofu is difficult to make taste good. I tried cooking it twice and it didn't come out right either time. I just don't know what the hell to do with it. Priya will tell you that it was fine, but it definitely was not fine. I saw a guy cook it on TV the other day by wrapping it in proscuitto and grilling it. That kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
3. Going vegetarian will not cause you to lose weight if you replace your portions of meat with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
4. When J-Bird said that eating a steak after not eating meat for a week made him feel high, it was because he was actually high at the time and not because of the steak. Or perhaps he was eating a steak made out of marijuana. I don't know. But I felt exactly the same going from meat-eating to vegetarian, and then switching back to meat. I mean, I felt exactly the same. This leads me to believe one of two things about people who claim that going vegetarian makes them feel ill or tired or whatever they say: (1) these people went from eating meat, which has some nutritional value, to eating nothing but potato chips and ice cream, or (2) they're lying and just want an excuse that justifies why they couldn't cut it as a vegetarian.
5. When in doubt over what vegetarian food to get, go Indian. Indians are, after all, a mostly vegetarian people, so they know how to do it right.
So that's it. I hope that I can use this experience to forge a healthier, less meat intensive diet going forward. That will officially complete my transformation into an effette, Prius-driving, interracially married, Los Angeles liberal pigdog. Oh how you all will feel so morally and culturally inferior when that day comes.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Our Trip Back East
Priya and I recently visited Maryland and North Carolina. We started our trip in Maryland where we spent a couple days on the Eastern Shore with Nan and Uncle Joe. While we were there, we went on several long drives out into the countryside. Here are some photos of the Eastern Shore in its current state of being.
These next two photos are of Wye Island. Wye Island is a "Natural Resource Management Area," whatever that means. My poking around on the internet revealed this synopsis concerning the history of Wye Island:
"For over 300 years, Wye Island was privately owned and managed for agricultural use, including tobacco and wheat farming. Two of the most noteworthy owners were William Paca [interesting sidebar, Priya and I were married at the William Paca House in Annapolis] and Charles Beale Bordley. Mr. Paca, third governor of Maryland and one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, owned half of the island north of Dividing Creek. Mr. Bordley was a distinguished lawyer and jurist who owned half of the island south of Dividing Creek. In the 1770's Mr. Bordley gave up his law career to devote his life to farming and make Wye Island totally self-sufficient. Under Mr. Bordley's control, the island prospered with its own vineyards, orchards, textile production, brick yard, and even its own brewery.
Eventually the island was sold off into at least 13 separate farms. The most influential owners were Glenn and Jacqueline Stewart. Ultimately they owned eight of the thirteen farms and turned Wye Island into a cattle ranch. The Stewart's built the hunting lodge (Duck House), which remains today on Granary Creek. In the mid 1970's the encroaching threat of residential development forced the State of Maryland to purchase the island to ensure its preservation."
Priya likes Mr. Bordley's definition of "self-sufficient," which is broad enough to include vineyards and a brewery. Having tasted wines made on the Eastern Shore, I understand why the vineyards didn't stick. While we were in Annapolis during our trip, we bought a bottle of "Gollywobbler Red," which is red wine produced by St. Michaels Winery. To our dismay, the wine tasted like Concord grape juice, which would have been fine if we were shopping for something to serve to children to make them go to sleep. Priya and I resolved that it should be called "Alcoholic Grape Juice. Great for Mixing!" and then we would have known not to buy it. Later, we examined the label more closely and found that it read: "This fun, fruit-forward wine is made with a combination of Concord grapes and a splash of Cabernet Sauvignon. A great picnic red with hints of lime and lemon. Drink it well chilled over crushed ice, or as a spritzer or martini." There you go. Always read the fine print.
If you want to visit Wye Island, the official website recommends that you bring bug spray.
In North Carolina we visited John, Kristen and Baby Rosie, and were joined by Mom and Dad, Jason and Marina, and Marc and Deanna. Here are some photos from that part of the trip.
Victory!
Don't worry Rosie, you're not related to him.
Rosie likes keeping her shoes on her hands. I don't know why but it's cute.
Don't let the pose fool you. He's neither strong nor muscular.
Why the grimace, Mr. Sandman?
These next two photos are of Wye Island. Wye Island is a "Natural Resource Management Area," whatever that means. My poking around on the internet revealed this synopsis concerning the history of Wye Island:
"For over 300 years, Wye Island was privately owned and managed for agricultural use, including tobacco and wheat farming. Two of the most noteworthy owners were William Paca [interesting sidebar, Priya and I were married at the William Paca House in Annapolis] and Charles Beale Bordley. Mr. Paca, third governor of Maryland and one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, owned half of the island north of Dividing Creek. Mr. Bordley was a distinguished lawyer and jurist who owned half of the island south of Dividing Creek. In the 1770's Mr. Bordley gave up his law career to devote his life to farming and make Wye Island totally self-sufficient. Under Mr. Bordley's control, the island prospered with its own vineyards, orchards, textile production, brick yard, and even its own brewery.
Eventually the island was sold off into at least 13 separate farms. The most influential owners were Glenn and Jacqueline Stewart. Ultimately they owned eight of the thirteen farms and turned Wye Island into a cattle ranch. The Stewart's built the hunting lodge (Duck House), which remains today on Granary Creek. In the mid 1970's the encroaching threat of residential development forced the State of Maryland to purchase the island to ensure its preservation."
Priya likes Mr. Bordley's definition of "self-sufficient," which is broad enough to include vineyards and a brewery. Having tasted wines made on the Eastern Shore, I understand why the vineyards didn't stick. While we were in Annapolis during our trip, we bought a bottle of "Gollywobbler Red," which is red wine produced by St. Michaels Winery. To our dismay, the wine tasted like Concord grape juice, which would have been fine if we were shopping for something to serve to children to make them go to sleep. Priya and I resolved that it should be called "Alcoholic Grape Juice. Great for Mixing!" and then we would have known not to buy it. Later, we examined the label more closely and found that it read: "This fun, fruit-forward wine is made with a combination of Concord grapes and a splash of Cabernet Sauvignon. A great picnic red with hints of lime and lemon. Drink it well chilled over crushed ice, or as a spritzer or martini." There you go. Always read the fine print.
If you want to visit Wye Island, the official website recommends that you bring bug spray.
In North Carolina we visited John, Kristen and Baby Rosie, and were joined by Mom and Dad, Jason and Marina, and Marc and Deanna. Here are some photos from that part of the trip.
Victory!
Don't worry Rosie, you're not related to him.
Rosie likes keeping her shoes on her hands. I don't know why but it's cute.
Don't let the pose fool you. He's neither strong nor muscular.
Why the grimace, Mr. Sandman?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Restaurant Review #1
I've decided to write some brief reviews of a few restaurants near our home in Mt. Washington. Why? I'm hoping that someone from a newspaper or a food website will read the blog and offer me a full-time job as a restaurant critic. Then, once I become well known and respected, I'll become a judge on Iron Chef America where I'll get paid big bucks to eat delicious food on TV and say things like, "I enjoy the textures and flavors in this dish, although I wonder how much the sea bass is really starring here. I feel like the risotto would be just as delicious without the sea bass." Could happen, right? Anyway, here goes.
The York
The York is a hip Gastro-Pub located on York Boulevard in Highland Park. This is one of our go-to restaurants, meaning we go there when we're hungry and don't want to take a chance on getting crappy food. Our favorite offerings from the black chalkboard menu are the shrimp bruschetta, the corn chowder, the fish and chips, the cheeseburger and fries, and the pulled pork cuban sandwich.
The cuban sandwich is particularly tasty. Imagine a good cuban sandwich in your mind's eye. The outside of the french bread is still hot and slightly greasy from the press, while the inside of the bread is soft and warm. With this sandwich you taste the pulled pork first. It's tender, thinly shredded, and slightly salty. It plays nicely with the thin slices of sweet ham and melted white cheese. The sandwich is also well complimented by a side serving of pickled slaw.
After a couple of big bites you've eaten half the sandwich. Now you're looking at the second half wondering if you should order another. You grab some fries from Priya's plate because you know you'll look like a pig if you order another sandwich. Mmm, the fries are good. Hot and well seasoned. A couple sips from your fine Beligian-style beer -- this time it's an Allagash White -- and you're wondering if you've ever had a better sandwich or a better beer or better fries. Perhaps, but the pork is causing delerium. Pork delerium hightened by fine Beligian-style beer. Now the room is spinning in pleasant harmony with your little food dance. It's really just a sway, that's all it is. A sway, back and forth, in your chair. You don't realize that you're doing it until Priya says, "What are you doing?" And then bartender gives you a funny look as if to say, "This bar is really meant for cool people, but it's okay, you look like you're having a good time." And you are. A great time, in fact.
So I recommend the York highly. Just try to get there early to avoid the dense hipster crowds.
Here is the link: http://www.theyorkonyork.com/
The York
The York is a hip Gastro-Pub located on York Boulevard in Highland Park. This is one of our go-to restaurants, meaning we go there when we're hungry and don't want to take a chance on getting crappy food. Our favorite offerings from the black chalkboard menu are the shrimp bruschetta, the corn chowder, the fish and chips, the cheeseburger and fries, and the pulled pork cuban sandwich.
The cuban sandwich is particularly tasty. Imagine a good cuban sandwich in your mind's eye. The outside of the french bread is still hot and slightly greasy from the press, while the inside of the bread is soft and warm. With this sandwich you taste the pulled pork first. It's tender, thinly shredded, and slightly salty. It plays nicely with the thin slices of sweet ham and melted white cheese. The sandwich is also well complimented by a side serving of pickled slaw.
After a couple of big bites you've eaten half the sandwich. Now you're looking at the second half wondering if you should order another. You grab some fries from Priya's plate because you know you'll look like a pig if you order another sandwich. Mmm, the fries are good. Hot and well seasoned. A couple sips from your fine Beligian-style beer -- this time it's an Allagash White -- and you're wondering if you've ever had a better sandwich or a better beer or better fries. Perhaps, but the pork is causing delerium. Pork delerium hightened by fine Beligian-style beer. Now the room is spinning in pleasant harmony with your little food dance. It's really just a sway, that's all it is. A sway, back and forth, in your chair. You don't realize that you're doing it until Priya says, "What are you doing?" And then bartender gives you a funny look as if to say, "This bar is really meant for cool people, but it's okay, you look like you're having a good time." And you are. A great time, in fact.
So I recommend the York highly. Just try to get there early to avoid the dense hipster crowds.
Here is the link: http://www.theyorkonyork.com/
Sunday, March 01, 2009
New Blog Post
So I've completely neglected ATGR in 2009. It's been that dreaded combination of work, laziness and lack of inspiration. Although I really haven't had much to write about. The one noteworthy item is that we almost bought a new house in January. We put an offer on a place in our neighborhood that we had always liked and which had come on the market cheap through a short sale. Unfortunately, when we had the inspection done during escrow, we found out that the house is full of termites, has a septic tank, needs a new roof, and has major structural problems. Even worse, we found out that the house was built on an Indian burial ground. Not a Native American burial ground. An Indian burial ground, as in, a burial ground of people from India. It's actually much worse than a Native American burial ground. For example, we encountered this one ghost named Darjaymender who warned us that the real estate market is still two years away from hitting rock bottom. It was terrifying. We also met a ghoulish Punjabi programmer named Ramjeet who said to Priya, and I quote, "आप मेडिकल स्कूल के लिए चले गए हैं चाहिए." From what Priya tells me, that roughly translates to, "You should have gone to medical school like my daughter, Ramjeeta." So we couldn't buy that place. Not with all that drama. Thanks, but no thanks.
Well, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your feelings about me and my off-color Indian jokes, I have nothing else to write. I guess I'll go to bed and sleep off what was another unremarkable day. Peace and love to all. As the late Louie Goldstein would say, God bless ya'll real good.
Well, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your feelings about me and my off-color Indian jokes, I have nothing else to write. I guess I'll go to bed and sleep off what was another unremarkable day. Peace and love to all. As the late Louie Goldstein would say, God bless ya'll real good.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
