Friday, May 31, 2013

The Loss of Fine Dining

-->
Notes of Concern…
                        …Jackson Blair


The Loss of Fine Dining


I really enjoy opportunities to join with friends over dinner at a nice restaurant. This has been something I have loved since I was a young man.

Unfortunately, many of the people who own or run restaurants now see it as a “business” rather than an “art.”  I think this is a mistake.

The very finest restaurants over time develop a really dedicated clientele. The most successful restaurants are those who welcome back satisfied diners again and again.

In my experience, returning often to a much beloved restaurant has as much to do with the friendliness of the staff and the ambiance of the setting as it does with the quality of the food.
All the really highly rated restaurants in New York City cater to their “returnees.”  They greet the “regulars” by name. They know without asking what cocktail to serve. They have learned which table you prefer and make certain you get it every time. They create a feeling of “family,” and you enjoy being part of it. 

And this is all before they even talk about food.

I see all of this as an “art” rather than a “science.” While it is certainly a good way to run a business, it never seems to be a “business” to the best owners.

So imagine my unhappiness at the current trend in owning or managing a good restaurant.
Today when you enter a restaurant and are seated at a table, it is difficult not to notice that your “host” is very eager to have you order, pay, and leave. 

Gone are the days that it was understood that you liked to take your time with a cocktail and some conversation. 

Gone are the days when the wait staff understood you would signal for a menu when you were ready. 

Gone are the days when you could look forward to a wonderful explanation of each dish from the waiter as well as suggestions from a wine steward to enhance your dining experience. 

Gone are the days when courses were served quietly and leisurely. 

Why not take one’s time with the appetizer? Why not have a second cocktail? Why not complete a conversation before the next plate is put in front of you?

Why not, indeed?  

Let me tell you why not. 

Because owners want to turn your table over two or three times a night. They want to make money, not friends. They want to make that one table of yours into a “cash cow” for the business.

I had an interesting dining experience some many years ago. A powerful owner of a brokerage house was hosting some others and me at a very expensive French restaurant in New York City. It was lunch, and he had anticipated a lot of conversation and interaction with his guests.
He had selected a restaurant he loved and one where he spent a great deal of money on an annual basis. And he had every hope this meal would be handled professionally, promptly, and courteously.

Shortly after we were seated and had perused the menu he demonstrated what a really great host should do. He asked each of us what we planned to order for an appetizer and an entrée. He then asked the wine steward for recommendations of both a white and a red wine that would compliment his guests’ meals.

He called over the Captain and began to recite what each of us wished to order and as he did so, he introduced each of us to the Captain and made certain he knew what each of us was ordering.

After this was concluded, we began a very nice round table discussion of the stock markets. I was sitting next to the host, so I was engaged directly in a conversation with him.

Then a waiter appeared with two plates in his hands and said, "Who ordered the filet rare?” 

Big mistake.

My host quietly finished his sentence, excused himself from our conversation, turned around to face the waiter, slammed his fist down on the table hard enough for the water goblets to shake, and said, “What are you running here? McDonalds? Get back in the kitchen and figure out who ordered the filet rare, and don’t come back to this table until you have it right.”

He then turned back to me and in a quiet voice picked up our conversation right where it had ended. Everyone in the restaurant heard what he said. And everyone understood that this client was not accepting second rate service at the first rate price they expected him to pay. Being a very wise man, he determined that making a large and embarrassing impact was the best way to ensure not only that the waiters would work it out correctly and abandon their shortcuts but that management would realize they might lose his business.

The waiter beat a hasty retreat to the kitchen, followed by the Maitre D, the Captain, and other official looking folks. When they returned from the kitchen, they had every single plate assigned to the appropriate person. 

Nothing further was said.

It was a teachable moment. 

My host could have bought and sold that restaurant many times over.  He is quoted in all the financial papers and is a celebrity in financial circles. He clearly liked this restaurant and was a regular customer. 

For him, it was the expenditure of money, but also of something perhaps more valuable to him, his time. He also wanted his guests to feel special. He did not want to be just another actor in a sideshow display. 

He was not going to be treated as if he was dining at a fast food restaurant while picking up a check that could easily have been $1,000.  He wanted what he paid for: a first class dining experience.

More recently I have noticed when I enter a nice restaurant, the waiter immediately wants me to order my dinner. No time to just relax and converse. The menu is pushed on you and the waiter stands there with pencil and pad in hand.

No sooner is the plate placed in front of you than the waiter asks if everything is  “OK.”  How he expects you to know that before you have sampled the food is beyond me. But it regularly happens.

If you are really lucky, your waiter will ask that same question at least twice more during the meal. Somebody has told this young fellow that his tip will be larger if he pretends to care.
When you have finished your entrée, you will get the same speedy attention regarding selecting and consuming dessert. 

And at least one more “is everything OK” moment to cherish as you grind your teeth.

Before you finish your dessert, you will probably see a check. It will be accompanied by “I will take that when you are ready.” This can be roughly translated as “time to pay me, get out of that chair, and head out into the night because I really want to use this table again before closing.”

So taking a page out of my NYC host’s playbook, I do the following when I am intending to have a relaxed evening of dining. 

I call it “Blair’s Rules for Handling Slippery Restauranteurs!”

1.   When I call to make a reservation I mention that I am expecting a slow, casual night with friends and that is why I have selected your fine restaurant. Usually someone in authority handles reservations and will make a notation.

2.   When I arrive and first encounter the Captain or “Maître D,” I clearly state that I wish to have a cocktail, and I will let the waiter know when I am ready to order. If that news falls on deaf ears, I make it pretty clear to the errant waiter who asks if I am ready. I have not yet become comfortable enough to pound a table and make a scene, but I manage to get my irritation across.

3.   When I am ready to order, I ask questions about the menu items and their preparation. If the waiter is unable to answer them, I send him to find the answers. It is always best to demonstrate who is in charge early.

4.   By now it is pretty clear to the owners and the staff who is in charge of my dining experience. And if they are smart, they fall right in line.

5.   If a waiter brings me a check before I am ready for it, I send it back. I can assure my readers that I have never had to do this twice at any restaurant. 

6.   When I do send for my check, I pay only the amount indicated. I do not “add” a tip. I understand that waiters often have to share their tips or even kickback some money to the owners. I choose to quietly hand a cash tip to my waiter, and it comes with a word of thanks. What he does with that, whom he shares it with or not, is fully then in his control. And believe me, he appreciates it and remembers every time I return.

7.   And if I intend to become a regular at the restaurant, I always “take care” of the captain or “Maître D” on the way out.

There was a time when none of these things would have been necessary because fine dining was just that: fine. And everyone involved with your evening wanted it to be memorable. People took great pride in their work.

Those days for the most part are gone. They left about the time we were no longer able to enjoy a good cigar and a glass of fine port after the meal.

It is all so maudlin.






Friday, May 24, 2013

Hazards of Life

-->
Notes of Concern…
                          …Jackson Blair


Hazards of Life




Let me warn my readers that this week’s column will have me whining a bit.  Sometimes I just have to let it all hang out.

For a long time governments, federal, state and local, have been looking for more ways to help us.

When they find new ways to help us, it is usually time for us to look out!

Lately, we have been treated to ways the Feds have been helping us through wiretaps, IRS shenanigans, and giving guns to our enemies in Mexico. 

The national press is doing a pretty good job of covering all that, so I am just going to focus on two ways the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is helping me.

As a fellow of a certain age, and entertaining some arthritis in my hands, I am not happy that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided that others and I might spill gasoline if we overflow our automobile gas tanks, and therefore they have outlawed the automatic portion of the gasoline station hose. 

This is the little piece of metal that permits you not to have to stand there pushing down on the throttle with arthritic hands and permits the pump to fill your tank and automatically shut off.
It is a huge inconvenience to folks like me to have to hold the lever down for a long period of time, but I suppose there is some research somewhere in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Never-Never Land indicating that when the automatic pump falters there is gas spillage. 

Now I am a pretty regular reader of papers and watcher of television news, but somehow I must have missed the significant growth in gas spills at gas stations due to the negligence of the customer. Those numbers must have been dramatic to warrant the attention of the legislature in Massachusetts.

Whatever that research is, it has yet not made it to Connecticut, New York, Washington, DC, Virginia, or North Carolina. I took a recent road trip through those fine states, and each of them permitted me to fill my gas tank automatically.  One would think the officials in Massachusetts would not keep their research secret but rather share it with their fellow states. It would just be the right thing to do.

It made me feel really blessed to live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as I was driving south. 

Boy, was I lucky. 

Not one gas spill in any of those states on my route. Phew. Good to be home. They are in for a real surprise when Massachusetts sends them the data.

For readers who live in states less interested in your safety, move immediately to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before you find yourself awash in spilled gasoline.

The other area of government protection I want to focus on in this column relates to smoke alarms and carbon dioxide alarms. 

The Commonwealth does not want me to die of smoke inhalation. They also would prefer I not inhale carbon monoxide. For their concern I will be eternally grateful. One has a great feeling of being loved when one’s government works so hard to keep you safe.

Prior to their legislating on these two hazards, I had to look out for myself. Traditionally, we would have some smoke detectors in the house, maybe three or four in key locations.  More recently, we splurged and got carbon monoxide detectors for the kitchen and the master bedroom. 

We felt pretty good about our vigilance.

Then, just to be even more certain that we were taking good car of ourselves, we added to our ADT Home Protection system two smoke alarms tied in to a monitoring system.

I will let the readers do the math. We had “mucho” alarms in our home. Some of them were even monitored when we were not at home.

We were in for a real surprise. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts obviously did not think we were safe enough.

We were doing some renovations and decided it would be a good time to be certain our home met the Commonwealth’s code requirements.

I called on a personal friend who also happens to be an experienced member of the local fire department, Martin Brooks, and he came to my home to inspect and advise. Marty is a first rate fireman and a straight talker, so I knew I would get good advice. Since he often is the representative of the fire department who certifies a house is in compliance getting the scoop from him was even more valuable.

He was professional, attentive, and helpful.

Marty informed me that I am very much out of code.

Who knew? 

Seems over the years, as the Commonwealth was busy finding new ways to protect me, they decided I had to have a smoke detector outside every one of my bedroom doors. 

Whew.

Who knew?

Marty saw my bewildered look and told me I was actually quite lucky. My house is over 100 years old and therefore “grandfathered” in some ways. Evidently if my home were newer the requirement is that I would need smoke detectors both inside every bedroom as well as outside every bedroom door.

How lucky can I get? How fortunate to find this out and to have the chance to do everything the Commonwealth wants me to do.

Then some wise state official realized a fire might occur when I was asleep, so detectors are also required on each floor, in the kitchen, in the basement, and in the family room.

I also learned if my home were younger, these smoke detectors would have to be hard wired to “talk to each other.” Marty told me that meant if there were a fire in one area of my home, all the alarms would go off.  

Who knew detectors talked? 

Who knew they talked to one another?

I am still pondering the message the Commonwealth is sending me in telling me since my home is really old my units do not need to “talk to each other” and if there is therefore a fire in the basement, I won’t know about it in the bedroom until most of the home is ablaze.

My readers probably realize I am only talking about smoke detector rules here, right?

Well, rest easy fellow denizens of Massachusetts because the rules regarding carbon monoxide detectors are equally onerous.

If I add the eleven detectors that it seems I need, I will need to spend between $500 (for the plastic stick up kind) to $1200 for the serious ones offered by ADT and monitored.

For my regular readers this can become a contest. You can try to guess what I will do. 

For those friends who visit my home regularly, let me say that should your eyes look upward as you make your way through my home, you will see a great many little white cones with small flashing red lights and know that should that secret killer, carbon monoxide, be emanating from any corner of my old home, you will have a chance to run outside and breath good fresh air.
Further, visiting friends will know that should there be a fire in any room of the home, you will have enough time to escape to safety.

Of course, since my detectors will not be “talking to each other,” you are at risk if you are spending the night, unless the fire actually occurs in the room you are occupying. 

But then again, because my home is old, you will not know until the flames have engulfed you in the bedroom and reached the required detector outside the bedroom.

Alternatively, if you only visit friends living in newer homes, you will be safe both in your bedroom and in the hall outside as your head to the bathroom.

For readers who live in states less interested in your safety, move immediately to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before fire or carbon monoxide gets the better of you.

Who knew that in the state where self reliance was valued, individualism celebrated, and personal responsibility encouraged, the government would accept the burden of insisting I decorate my home with little units that talk, or do not talk, to one another and that if I fail to do so, I will be between Plymouth Rock and a Hard Place?

Where are the Sons of Liberty when I need them?





Sunday, May 19, 2013

Too Soon...Too Late


Notes of Concern…
                  …Jackson Blair

Too Soon…Too Late



It made me sad last week watching the House hearings on Benghazi.

Three fine public servants, fellows who liked their work, dedicated their lives to serving all of us, honored, commended, and in places of high responsibility, had to risk it all in order to look themselves in the face each morning.

They had followed the parsing and smoke and mirrors that has defined “Benghazi” until they just could not stand by any longer.

So they went before a House committee and reported what they saw, what they heard, what they communicated and how they were treated by their superiors up the chain of command. Let us keep in mind that they were there, they feared for their lives, they were uncertain how to get out of Libya, they did not know what else might happen… and during this time they had no help from their country.

None.

Nada.

Because the current president is a Democrat, the Democrats accused these men as well as the House Republicans of simply playing politics. If the president had been a Republican and operated in a similar fashion, the GOP would be tarring these Democrats with accusations of “politics” also.

It is the way the sordid game is played.

What happened to Americans in the Benghazi raid was abhorrent. The fact that their country might have been in a position to help them and did not is reprehensible.

Further, the treatment of those who were onsite and depending on those who were safely ensconced in their Washington DC offices outrages me.

I saw this kind of thing happen when Richard Nixon had been re-elected by a landslide in 1972 and was out of office in 1973 because he played games with an election, made up an enemies list, used the IRS to hurt his opponents and lied about and distorted events.

He made political decisions when moral ones were called for. Sadly it appears to me that history is repeating itself. First we had the fast and furious operation in Mexico. Now we have this operation in Libya.

I am not naïve enough to think that I can make a case that the current president and his cabinet secretaries may well have weighed the political calendar when they determined how to respond, or more accurately-not respond.

I am also not naïve enough to think it is not possible that is exactly what transpired.

Regardless of why it happened, the threats and intimidation of good people did happen and is happening and all of us, Republicans and Democrats, should be furious.

Could we just for a minute remove the political labels, throw the donkey and the elephant under the bus, and think like patriotic Americans. If the government in all its splendor will not defend these three men and others like them who want to tell us the truth, and if the Congress cannot get out of its own way to permit a proper investigation and a report to the American people, then shame on “we the people” if we do not demand a full clarification of what happened, an honest appraisal of everything that went into the decision, a report that names names and expects responses and holds people accountable.

Let the chips fall where they may.

We owe it to Ambassador Christopher Stevens who died.

We owe it to computer expert Sean Smith who died.

We owe it to Navy Seal Glen Doherty who died.

We owe it to Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who died.

They lost their lives in service to us.

We also owe it to

Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks, berated and demoted.

Top On-site State Department Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who knew he could get help and was told to stand down.

Mark Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations at the State Department's Bureau of Counterterrorism who was ashamed of his country.

And any other person who is struggling against large odds in order to tell the story to the American people.

On September 11 Ambassador Stevens spoke with his deputy, Greg Hicks and said “we are under attack.”

Hicks response was to alert Washington, DC and in turn The White House/ State Department.

Hicks expectation was that help would be forthcoming. While he was obviously concerned about the Ambassador and the staff in Benghazi he was also rightfully concerned about all the other Americans at risk in the country.

Then he was shocked that the Obama administraton said otherwise.

In his emotional testimony he said “I was stunned.”

And he said “my jaw dropped.”

And he said “I was embarrassed.”

When suggesting that this man is “playing politics” let us remember he is a career diplomat, served in the second position in Libya, and had just lost not only his friend Chris Stevens but three others.

And his bosses were saying it was not a terrorist attack but rather a reaction to a film.

They left him twisting in the wind in a foreign land.

When he asked questions, an Under Secretary of State told him he needed to improve his management style. When he asked some more questions he was demoted to a desk job.

If readers are naïve enough to believe somehow this man was not performing well, let us keep in mind that but a few weeks before he was good enough to be Deputy Chief of Mission, selected by the very same people who now criticize him and would have us believe somehow he is lacking in qualification.

Eric Nordstrom, the lead security expert for the region, wants the record to be set straight. He said: “it matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State….it matters to the American public for whom we serve, and most importantly it matters to the friends, the family of those killed.”

If readers are naïve enough to believe somehow this man was not performing well, let us keep in mind that but a few weeks before he was good enough to be head of all security for the region, selected by the people who currently criticize him.

Through many phone calls Hicks had arranged for special op forces to come to their rescue. But then the commander was ordered to stop by “his superiors.”

The commander is reported to say he had never been so embarrassed in his life.

I want to know who in Washington stopped that rescue or retaliation flight. As of today, without more hearings and more digging we do not know.

It is noteworthy that a woman the president thought superior enough to represent our nation at the United Nations was foolish enough to go on numerous national television shows to shill for the idea that the Libyans were just upset over a movie.

Well, if she believed that she demonstrates a total lack of competence and should never have been our Ambassador to the UN.

If she knew it to be false then she demonstrates that she would deliberately mislead the American people in service to an administration she knew they were misleading the American people. This, too, would disqualify her from serving.

Let it be noted that the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya has been demoted to a desk job while UN Ambassador Susan Rice continues to live in the Waldorf Towers and represent all of us to the world.

I recall a United States Senator who became famous in 1973 during the Watergate Hearings for asking: “what did you know and when did you know it.” This Senator, Senator Baker of Tennessee, was a Republican and was holding the Republican President’s feet to the fire.

I would like to see a United States Senator from the Democrat party step up and make these hearings and this investigation non-partisan. Perhaps it will happen. It is the only way the hearings will get traction with the press.

Boy it would be nice to have a Woodward and Bernstein again on the Washington beat.

Today’s press corps seems to have totally abandoned the idea of investigative journalism that made us all so proud of newsmen in the 1970s.

When all of this happened, efforts to get information resulted in The White House saying it was entirely too early to be making judgments and that more time was needed to determine the facts.

More recently efforts to get information resulted in The White House Press Secretary saying it happened a long time ago and to suggest we move on.

In the middle, during testimony to Congress, Secretary Clinton responded to questions about Benghazi response with a “what does it matter.”

It is never too early to find the truth.

It is never too late to find the truth.

And we need to be dogged in being certain we do find the truth.

And it does matter. It matters very much indeed.


(information for this story was found in reports in USA Today, Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal and was further informed by the writer watching the House hearings in their entirety.)
















For further information:  jacksonblair@gmail.com

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The Pastel Life

-->
Notes of Concern…
                   …Jackson Blair


The Pastel Life



When  children are growing up they are usually faced with a “black and white” life.

They are learning the rules.

There is what is right and what is wrong. What is good and what is bad.

During adolescence many children test those rules.

Perhaps that is why parents of adolescents talk so much about “rebellion”.  Rebellion is a good word because the adolescent is truly rebelling against the hard drawn lines of their childhood.

The fact of rebellion does not eliminate the possibility that after the testing period the adolescent will return to the eternal verities promulgated during the childhood years.

But it is only with maturity that the child will come to realize that the reason parents deal in “black and white” when rearing their offspring is that they have already passed through the valley of testing and experimenting and have arrived at a place where they understand a predictable life is an easier life. They want to spare their children from the hurt and disappointment they found during their own period of experimentation, railing against the rules of society, and the pain of discovery.

It is, if not a vicious cycle, a predictable one. The history is clearly written through the ages of one generation after another.

So what of those who have made the trip and have been hurt or disappointed with the daily experimentation with various forms of living but are not willing to turn back to a more black and white approach to life, one that while not nearly as exciting is much safer?

It is common to suggest that they are happy to live in the gray areas of life. Some things being determined to be truly black and white while others are seen as gray areas of life.

In my experience none of it has been all that easy.

I do believe there are certain rules that must be certain and well defined and that they provide us with both a level of comfort and predictability that can make life pleasant.

But I also look upon that decision as one that can eliminate the joys of a colorful life.

The bottom line for me has been to look at my life as a life in pastels. I invite some black into my life, in the form of the Ten Commandments, but I generally look at everything else as fluid with each situation, to be examined for all that it might offer.

More importantly, with age I have become more tolerant of differences in people. I no longer battle to convince folks that my way is the right way.

I am content to say it is right for me.

I am open to hearing what is right for you.

And at the end of the day, it is easier for me to accept that in some ways we are the same and in other ways we are different. And this fact opens up worlds of possibilities for our friendship.

This thinking has permitted me personally to escape from a black and white world, from the tyranny of rules imposed on us by others, and to enjoy the people with whom I interact, and to love my pastel world.

Might this be the real advantage of maturity?

Could it be the reward at the end of a life where one was taught the black and white, experimented with the bright reds and greens, admired the deep hues of the blue and the shining yellows but ultimately ended up happy and content with the pastels?

Could it truly be that everyone at some point finds the muted rainbow?