W10: A sandwich is a sandwich by any other name.

When I think about what a sandwich really is I think about a story I read on one of the web sites that I frequent. Kevin Butler, a persona for Sony's Playstation 3, talked about a "Monte Cristo" which is an entire ham, turkey, and swiss sandwich dipped in French Toast batter and deep fried. He then goes on to talk about how his favorite sandwich is a double bacon cheeseburger with two Monte Cristo Sandwiches as the bun. It's Frankenstein creation of epic proportions, but it's something that I would only eat for monetary compensation. However, it does get me thinking about what a sandwich really is. I've never really considered a hamburger to be a sandwich before. The more that I think about it though, the more it makes sense that these types of things could be considered a sandwich. Even take the word, sandwich. It means to take two things and put something in between them. Under this criteria, a hamburger would qualify as a sandwich. A quesadilla would also be considered a sandwich under this definition because there are two tortillas sandwiching cheese and whatever else is inside. I even think that a hot dog could possibly be considered a sandwich. Some people might get tripped up by the fact that the bun is connected, but a lot of sub shops serve their sandwiches with the bun not fully cut. The only true objection I have to that list is a crepe. I don't really think a crepe counts as a sandwich because of the fact that is folded around its contents. Therefore it is what we would considered a wrap, which some of the time contains what is normally held inside of a sandwich. It's one of those things like where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square.

W9: Sharing Food

I grew up an only child for most of my life so I never really had to fight my other siblings for food. I would generally get access to whatever food was there. When we would go to the store, any special foods would be just for me or my father.

This year was the first year I moved to into an apartment and has been the first time I have ever had to share food. When we moved in, my three other roommates and I attempted to establish a set of rules to how the kitchen would work. We said that the basics would be shared: eggs, milk and bread. Then we said that any other food that we did not want others to eat would be marked with our initials. This small set of rules seemed simple enough and that we could easily follow them. For the most part, the rules remained in place.

However, after a couple of weeks, things began to fall through. One problem we had was how often we were going through those basic materials. We would eat all of the eggs or drink all of the milk and then no one would be willing to buy more because they felt they didn't eat their share. The next problem we had that people began to be lax with their labeling process. One roommate in particular took advantage of this and if it wasn't explicitly labeled he would assume it was for everyone even when it came to things like cookies or brownies. Food soon became a free-for-all. I started keeping all of my food in my room or my mini-fridge and I would only bring it out when I wanted to eat it.

It's hard coming into a living situation like this without having any experience with it from my childhood. I never had to ferociously guard my food so that others would not eat it. I would generally share food with others if they asked, but when they start taking food without asking it becomes difficult to maintain that mentality. Especially when hypocrisy is involved. One time I asked one of my roommates if we could use one of his eggs that he kept in his room. This was the same roommate that would eat anything that was not physically attached to my other roommates. He interrogated me with questions like "How many are you going to use?" and "Who is going to use them?"

It is a constant struggle to maintain fairness in the kitchen when you live with three other people who came from different backgrounds than you.

W8: Myers crusade against foodies

Myers' argument against the foodies who populate our entertainment is an interesting one, but I do not necessarily agree with it. He makes several good points such as how these food critics often embrace gluttony and relish in the fact. At first it appears the his argument has no flaw, but upon closer inspect and further analysis it is invalid. I believe that Myers is looking at foodies with too much of a critical eye. He often cites Anthony Bourdain and his latest book and uses that example as, among a few others, how the rest of the foodie culture is. Bourdain has a unique persona. He is often crass, rude, and overly arrogant. He is an extreme example of what a foodie could be and he does not represent the entire group of food critics and chefs around the world. He is the type of person who would eat endangered animals without feeling guilt. Jamie Oliver, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of what Bourdain is like. Oliver worked to establish a food kitchen in West Virginia in order to combat obesity. Other chefs like to give back to the community and not all of them are self absorbed. For every cooking show or book that embraces gluttony there is one that cries the importance of inexpensive and healthy meals. Rachel Ray's 30-minute meals are all about quick and affordable meals.  I feel that Myers' argument was very one sided and only looked at some of the extreme examples that foodies can have. I do not believe that all cooks and food critics are extreme gluttons. I feel that American society is already a gluttonous society but most chefs stress the importance of cooking your own food and correct portions. Overall I believe that there might be gluttons in the foodie culture, but they are evenly balanced by responsible chefs and critics as well.