please stand clear of the closing doors

i love the new york city subway system. granted it's not the cleanest mode of public transportation. it's certainly no washington dc metro; i swear if one desired (and of course there's no good reason one would), one could -- quite safely -- eat off the floors of the dc trains. no need for the five-second rule there. you drop your water bottle cap and you're a-ok. when i drop my water bottle cap on the train in new york, i find i'm inevitably on the fence. there's the "a little bacteria is actually good for you" school of thought. and who wants to be neurotic and wasteful? don't worry about it and put the cap back on the bottle, i tell myself. but then i think of exactly where that bacteria might be coming from. i have seen many, many unpleasant things on subway trains. twisting that cap back on the bottle -- directly where i put my mouth... well, more often than not, i end up polishing off my water before my stop and replacing the bottle at my destination. i guess you might say i feel a definite need for implementing something more "hardcore" than merely the five-second rule.

but although it may be somewhat squalid at times, i really have quite a fond place in my estimation for the new york city trains. for starters, they go everywhere. nowhere else -- with the possible exception of paris -- have i encountered such comprehensive subway service. think about where you live and where you work; is there more than one usable subway stop for either of those locations? both? i am confident that there is, for at least one. and i take that as an unmistakable sign of great service. to get from my apartment to my workplace, for example, i could take a total of five different trains, stopping at two different stations. average discrepancy in minutes, no more than fifteen. at worst. when leaving various parts of manhattan for my home in brooklyn, i often have up to eight choices of trains (nine with a little more of a walk). although sometimes challenging for those who struggle with decision-making, i love that about the subway here. it is the epitome of convenience.

except, of course, when it's not; but hey, nothing is perfect. attempting to get from midtown manhattan to a dinner engagement in the cobble hill section of brooklyn an evening or two ago, i walked happily from work to the f(-as-in-fancy) train, expecting a straight-shot from 34th st. herald square to bergen st., in brooklyn. that, however, was not to be. "due to an investigation at west 4th street, brooklyn-bound f-as-in-frank service has been suspended. as an alternative [insert incomprehensible, tinny, muffled, incomprehensible blabber here] or [more of the same]. thank you." after the initial, "ok, let me figure out what i will do in lieu of the customary route," my thoughts turned immediately to the "investigation." i got off the train at west 4th st., having devised a route to get me to bergen st. (take the f to west fourth, the a to jay st., where i could pick up another f(-as-in-frolic) train that was not affected by said "investigation"). as i waited on the platform for the a (-as-in-alley) train at west 4th, i spied an old coworker and fried of mine. we greeted, and she asked me where i was headed; i mapped out my convoluted train route to cobble hill. she remarked that there have been lots of glitches with the trains lately. i mused out loud on the nature of the "investigation" that had us chatting on the platform that evening. why couldn't they just say there was "a stalled train," we wondered together. or cite some other "technical" problem? what was meant by such an ominous choice of words as "investigation"? when it was time for us to part, we had decided that it was probably another conservative scare tactic, devised to win our support for the war in iraq since the terrorists are no doubt causing vague investigations at new york city subway stops on a vaguely regular basis (oft on the eve of politically important "moves," i find).

but no, i have implied falsehoods. for i know better to think of the new york city subway system as run by conservatives. in fact, it is actually run by no mere mortals, at all. for everyone who has ever wondered why it is that the train is inevitably -- and impeccably -- arriving just as you step (and leisurely, too) onto the platform when you have absolutely nowhere to be, and why it is inevitably -- also impeccably -- pulling out of the station after you, hideously late for something of dire importance, have mustered all of your lung capacity, sprinted onto the platform, and knocked over three small children and one old lady in the process of trying to catch that buggery train, i -- along with a brilliantly astute friend of mine to whom i give full credit for beginning the investigation years ago -- offer you this: there is a force. the force is called "metron." it controls all things subway. and now that you are in the know, we encourage you to talk to metron, pray to metron, bow to metron, grovel to metron, sacrifice your favorite train reading material to metron. (but not the latest new yorker, metron is currently overwhelmed by the amount of new yorkers it has received as of late.)

i know what you're thinking. you scoff at the absurd idea of such a massive presence that essentially is the subway. some perspective, then: a year ago today, new yorkers were in the midst of the 2005 new york city transit strike. negotiations between the transport workers union and the metropolitan aransportation authority broke down over retirement and pension issues, as well as wage increases, and the mta personnel struck, freezing virtually all public transport in the city of new york. for many new yorkers, this day last year calls to mind images of hoards of bundled manhattan work-goers pouring into the city -- on foot -- over various bridges, masses of people trying to flag down cabs, vans, cars with extra seat, any vehicle that seemed to be going anywhere (the unspoken new yorker rule never to get into unmarked cabs went, as it were, out the window and into the east river that was by then taking a solid two hours to cross in a car), and just a general sense of civil unrest. it was really quite remarkable. of course, one is never more aware of how much one relies on something until it ceases to be, well, reliable. but beyond the thunderous and mighty inconveniences -- the missed work, the missed travel, the missed holiday gatherings -- there was something very humanizing about the consequences of that strike. it was, after all, an inherently communal experience. and the subway experience on its own is already something of a shared one; there's not so much emphasis put on personal space when you're on a manhattan-bound express train to midtown at 8:30 in the morning. [in fact, i have always had a desire to conduct some sort of social experiment, trying to determine exactly how far one can push the sense that we are really co-inhabitants of that space on the train upon entering. i'd like to test out "falling asleep" and "inadvertently" resting my head on the shoulder of the person sitting next to me. who would tolerate? how much would they tolerate? what would they do to deter it? i think it sounds quite fascinating.] but there was something about that strike, about people jumping in cars with strangers and pressing on, wall st. workers and line-cooks alike, over the bridges to get to work. it was a concrete depiction of not only just how much that many people depend on public transportation (metron is watching you), but also an extension of the subway experience in new york. i met someone from suburban oregon (redundant?) not long ago who was visiting the city and had much to say about how cold and difficult and abrasive new yorkers are. but does he drives to work everyday in a car all by himself. he doesn't deal with hundreds of other peoples' pets, bags, ipods, books, newspapapers, limbs etc. in his face everyday. are we really so astrigent? and just think about a year ago today, new yorkers migrating together like some sort of giant flock. and on the strike, don't get me wrong. it was absolutely horrid and i wouldn't wish it on anyone, ever. but perhaps it offered something worthy about which to think.

my subway musings today have been inspired by a first-anniversary-of-the-transit-strike party i will be attending this evening. hopefully no "investigations" will hinder my punctual arrival at this oh-so-worthy celebration of the subway and the "subway culture" that surrounds. indeed, i, for one, will be t-as-in-toasting our trains tonight.

the informed citizen?

i saw an associated press article today entitled "if you're going to smoke, at least exercise." the sub-head of the article reads, "smokers can cut lung cancer risk with activity, but quitting is still the better choice." this started me thinking. and not actually about the study itself (which, by the way, found study participants -- older female smokers, in this case -- who were physically active had a 35 percent lower risk of getting lung cancer than those who were not), but about the nature of the article. i think it addresses a really relevant issue; one from which, i think many tend to shy. to use the example at hand, everyone knows there are lots of people who smoke cigarettes. everyone also knows that anyone who smokes compromises their health. now while that's all well and good, it seems to me that most people seem to think that is all that's remotely worth knowing. and there, i take issue. let us return to the first part of that statement: there are lots of people who smoke. now if that is true, shouldn't there be information available to those who do smoke about how best to take care of themselves in spite of the fact they smoke? the article included -- predictably -- a "disclaimer" about this research not being a go-ahead to smoke. but would anyone really think that any piece of information about smoking would make it safe to do it? of course not. the key here is that information was released that is relevant to the "whole story," to cohesiveness, to a comprehensive approach to information and access to information. isn't that what journalists are supposed to do? give information without suppression, alteration, or judgment? what happened to giving people facts with which they can do what they want, as an individual? what happened to that?

i was pleased to see that article. i like being presented with something i can interpret for myself. i like a little controversy. or at least some room for it. i like that one can tell from the way that article reads that it was somehow slightly "edgy" medical information, that some might take issue with a publication printing something that says, basically, if you do make that bad health decision, at least make this good one, instead of just pummeling the bad by virtue of some vague, societal instinct. while it states clearly that quitting smoking is clearly the best route, it is also not merely a judgment-ridden condemnation of the act. some people choose to smoke. that is their choice and no one else need agree or disagree. no doctor who participated in this research is saying, "you should start smoking and then exercise to offset cancer risks." the message is in the completely -- refreshingly -- down-to-earth headline, "if you smoke, at least exercise."

this brings to mind an issue we deal with daily at planned parenthood: sexual activity in teenagers and sex education at high schools. no doubt everyone is familiar with the "abstinence-only sex education" route. and i, for one, find it totally sensible to solely preach abstinence, since there are no kids in the united states engaging in sexual activity. right. of course there is no call for information about silly things like birth control. if only educators and politicians (why the politicians are involved in this is beyond me) could agree to offer young people the information to make informed decisions about their health instead of pushing an agenda of moral predetermined "morality." wake-up call: kids are having sex. let us help them to do it safely. again, no one is telling thirteen year-old lucy to become sexually active. but if she were to make that choice, shouldn't she at least have access to the means to protect herself? a no-brainer. no?

or a whole different level, not too long ago ifc released "this film is not yet rated." though i found the film far from perfect, i was appalled by an enlightening segment of split-screen shots designed to demonstrate the difference between graphic sexual scenes that apparently merit a "nc-17" rating and those that get merely an "r" rating instead. the difference? one side -- the "r" side -- showed heterosexual couples, one side -- the feared-by-all-filmmakers "nc-17" side -- homosexual couples. it reminded me of all the press some of the oscar-nominated films -- brokeback mountain, capote, transamerica -- got last year in conservative media for being morally reprehensible, for promoting homosexuality. indeed, hollywood apparently was trying to make american film-goers gay. and at its heart, this issue is the same as the abstinence-only education debate and an article about taking better care of yourself while still smoking cigarettes. the films were agenda-less. they were not some suggestion or dictation of how one should behave. why not let people see the movies, and decide for themselves if they are indeed so abhorrent? why the need for constant commentary and judgment and someone else's "context?"

last night i took a cab from the west village and i chatted with the cabbie on the ride home to park slope. he was a musician and a visual artist originally from baltimore. he talked about the artistic and creative scene in his hometown, painting it as very rugged and still quite raw, inspiring, individual. i made some generic comment inquiring how could one who lives in new york city -- the cultural capital of all this is anything -- could possibly want for any other "scene." and i was about to start my "actually, the issue is that we are all so spoiled in new york; we live here on our island of liberal openness and acceptance and truth and information and artistic freedom and nurturance etc. etc. etc." rant when he turned around and looked at me through the break in the plexiglas divider. "new york is not what it used to be," he said. "it's conservative now. it's changed. new york? it's become no york."

i do not agree with that assertion. i think there's much to be found and explored and interpreted here in new york. i feel i am provided for here, intellectually, "informatively," artistically, creatively, as an individual. but i won't deny that the conversation with the cabbie made me that much more enthusiastic to see that associated press article about exercising smokers, of all things. an objective, potentially controversial piece of informational journalism. what a novelty.

from my holiday kitchen to yours

one need not brave the very suddenly frigid new york city temperatures to know we are in the midst of the full holiday swing. in the same vein as the old adage "everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten," it seems to me that everything you need to experience about christmas you can do in starbucks. right around thanksgiving when each cup -- tall, grande, and venti -- turns red and snowflake-y, the starbucks patron knows it's time to switch to holiday mode. they're on top of things, jazzy christmas mixes, gift sets, christmas mugs, eggnog and gingerbread lattes and peppermint mochas, even the baked goods shift into holiday gear: red sprinkles, cranberry cakes, lots of red stuff.

it was the season change chez starbucks that got me thinking how during the holiday whirlwind, the average american must eat, drink, and entertain more, all of which would certainly mean more time in the kitchen. and it was during a conversation about an acquaintance's determination to develop a homemade eggnog recipe that it occurred to me how long some things take to prepare. i am a big fan of cooking; i think it's great fun, and -- mostly -- most rewarding. but it being the holidays (sincere thanks to starbucks as i'd nearly forgotten until blinded by red stimulus intense enough to lend an alarmingly enduring pinkish hue to everything on which i looked), we are all inevitably short on extra minutes. indeed, juggling holiday events can be trying; cocktail parties, brunches, outdoor forays, family dinners, christmas tree purchasing, christmas tree decorating (if you are the tree-inclined type, of course). there's shopping. oh, and work (if you are the paycheck-inclined type). the point is, new yorkers are always busy -- or at least we think we are. and during the holidays, new yorkers are even busier.

that is why i felt it appropriate to share a few ways to save time in the kitchen. as i said, i adore cooking, and there is often no substitute for truly homemade edibles. except when there is. what follows are some examples that i have found fall under the "it's just not worth it" category. so have a perusal for your holiday time-budgeting purposes. if you had planned an attempt at anything you see below, i highly recommend you save yourself the time, take a trip to the store, and enjoy that first drink before you have to deal with company. or being someone else's. or children. or fellow shoppers. or your boss. whomever, really.


artichokes. i love artichokes. not the ones at the salad bar that come from a jar, but real artichokes. there's nothing better than braised artichokes with some lemon juice. they are often found in the form of an appetizer holiday gatherings. they are also the only vegetable ever to actually make me bleed. all on their own. i do not mean i was chopping or peeling or stemming and cut myself in the process; under that criteria i'd be obliged to add carrots, potatoes (regular and sweet), beets, kohlrabi, and i'm sure a few others to the list. no, the artichoke stands alone as the one vegetable on which i've actually cut myself. but personal grudge aside, the beginning of a basic artichoke recipe reads as follows: "working with one artichoke at a time, cut off top inch of artichoke and gently pull open center. scoop out sharp leaves and fuzzy choke from center with a melon-ball cutter or a spoon. trim bottom quarter-inch of stem, keeping stem attached, and peel stem. put artichoke in a large bowl of cold water. repeat with remaining artichokes." (please note the emphasis on "sharp leaves.") i am not an idiot in the kitchen. but this is a classic case of "it's just not worth it." go to your nearest gourmet store with a prepared food section. have a cocktail and avoid nasty sharp leaf cuts.

homemade candy of any kind. i know, all the holiday sweets with shiny red wrappers and silver ribbons have you tempted go to work on some of your own goodies? and what a nice gift, too. well, homemade candy it is so incredibly not worth it. thermometers, scalding butter, and melting sugar, it's truly more of a chemistry experiment than anything else. and my rule of thumb around the holidays is that if the list of "equipment" that accompanies a recipe is longer than a single item (or if that single item has more than three syllables), it's a no-go. buy your candy this season. and drop a peppermint into your martini to feel festive.


real pumpkin pie. the holiday pie. "there's a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy, as we pass around the coffee and the pumpkin pie." (allow me to point out that when i googled part of this lyric as i am a bit rusty on my christmas carols, one of the first returns was the "pagan friendly christmas carol site." fantastic.) but yes, everyone loves pumpkin pie. and it's easy to make. if done correctly. and by that i mean, for the love of everything holy -- and pagan -- use canned pumpkin. i understand that you want to produce a pie filling that began as the actual pumpkin sitting in your kitchen. you'll feel terribly accomplished. but do you really want to fight with said pumpkin on the cutting board on which it will inevitably not fit and around which it inevitably will roll, only to find that when you do finally hack the thing open, it takes you fifteen minutes to discard the seeds and intensely stringy parts that have captured all the seeds (and surprisingly securely, considering it's just pumpkin). and if that's not enough, you have to roast it until it's soft enough to let it sit until it's cool enough to scoop out the flesh and actually work with it. exactly, now you start the recipe. not worth it. and on top of that, real pumpkin is exceedinly stringy, and it gets stuck in your teeth. buy canned pumpkin and have some mulled red wine, it'll be much smoother sailing.


homemade bread. i love making bread. the smell in the kitchen is worth it alone, forget the finished product. however, during the holidays, i highly recommend buying bread from a good bakery. or, if you wish, make the dough, knead the dough, roll the dough, cover the dough, raise the dough, punch the dough, recover the dough, raise the dough some more, punch the dough again, knead the dough for longer, roll the dough one more time for kicks, put the dough in the pan, bake the dough, cool what is now the bread, and... oh wait, the yeast was expired. the temperature in the first rising location was two degrees too warm. you punched the dough too soon. you covered the dough with saran wrap instead of warm dishcloth when letting it rise for the second time (the saran wrap should have come first, darnit!). you over-oiled, then over-floured to compensate. you let it sit too long the second time. you baked it a quarter-inch too far from the exact center of the middle oven rack. you get my point: you know what they say about things that can go wrong; that's right, they will. you should be able to find a nice rustic country bread at any local bakery. in the meantime, celebrate all that disappointment you saved with a nice tumbler of spiked eggnog. (SEE NEXT ITEM TO EXECUTE THIS CORRECTLY.)


eggnog. eggnog brings a whole other factor into the realm of consideration: food-born illness. come, you know after what is supposed to be the healthiest thing of all (spinach) actually started killing people, we're all a little more wary about food poisoning. and eggnog is made from raw eggs, one of the most well-known culprits (raw chicken, of course, being the other) for salmonella. so you're having a holiday party and you'd like to break out homemade nog. i say, not worth it. it's not a terribly difficult recipe, but it's also not a quickie. so, if you'd like to spend part of your party prep separating egg yolks from egg whites, beating the yolks very slowly while simultaneously adding sugar until the mixture is a pale yellow, slowly adding in the brandy and/or rum (for the grown-ups), beating in milk and only half the allotted amount of cream, whisking the whites and folding those into the yolks, flavoring it appropriately with spices, whipping the other half of the cream with more sugar, and topping each serving with whipped cream just so you can take responsibility for serving your guests an unpasteurized raw egg beverage, feel free. there are many excellent store-bought varieties, often to be found in close proximity to the wine sections of gourmet food stores. a nice riesling, perhaps, and cheers to intestinal health?


roasted peppers. roasting vegetables is often a great holiday technique: throw a bunch of root vegetables in a roasting pan, toss with some olive oil, salt, and pepper, and ignore it for the next forty-five or so minutes in the oven. however roasting a pepper for use in recipes regretfully procures a place on my not-worth-it-during-the-holidays list. scene: you're preparing roasted red pepper dip for a christmas eve potluck. you roast them. the juice inevitably goes everywhere (i don't care how much foil you use) and burns on your pan. you scrub the pan while you let the peppers sit in the brown paper bag so you can skin them. you realize it's getting late. the peppers are not quite cool, but you must remove the skin to work with them, so in you go, brave soul. you wind up unfashionably late for your potluck and empty-handed. that is, of course, because you had to soak your pepper flesh- scorched digits until you could once again tolerate contact with surfaces, clothes, champagne flutes and so on. not worth it. skip to the champagne.

sushi. again, one of those where if you want to do it all day, sure. but worrying whether your glutinous rice is glutinous enough to make it actually stick to the nori and hold the rolls together with friends on the way to your "ultra-mod asian-chic" holiday sushi and sake party, not as much fun. order in, focus on the sake.


flan. shows up around the holidays more than you might think. i enjoy the spanish custard. however, two words: water bath. (five more: pastry shop and a nice rioja. oh wait, that was six.)


happy cooking and happier consumption. and be sure to stop into starbucks for a shot of consumerist holiday with that espresso.