In article >,
says...
>
> sf wrote:
>
> >
> > You're right. Boiling pork doesn't kosher it, but it's a funny (ha
> > ha) thought. FYI: interestingly enough, I know Seventh Day Adventists
> > who adhere to Jewish dietary laws and they are not an anomaly.
> >
> > http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
> >
> > ... although observant Jews are only a small fragment of the
> > marketplace, kosher certification is also relied upon by many Muslims
> > (see: http://www.muslimconsumergroup.com/hfs.htm), vegetarians
> > (although this is not fool-proof; dairy and pareve foods may contain
> > eggs or fish; but if it isn't kosher, it probably isn't vegetarian),
> > some Seventh Day Adventists, as well as many other people who simply
> > think that kosher products are cleaner, healthier or better than
> > non-kosher products.
> >
>
> The dietary restrictions were a good idea back in the day when pork and
> seafood could kill you. I hear the SDAs don't drink and dance. This is
> good practical advice too in keeping one out of trouble - especially
> that dancing part...

But then today we have all sorts of conflicting information on alcohol
in general.

One study says the resveratrol in wine is good for us. Another says wine
in general is bad for us.

I don't understand, I thought alcohol was a diuretic. Wouldn't regular
(1 to 2 glasses a day) lower blood pressure?

In article >,
says...
>
> maxine wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 10:50 am, bulka > wrote:
> >> On Mar 8, 6:46 am, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Also, Chinese fast food in St. Louis has other peculiarities:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul_sandwich
> >>> --Bryan
> >> Yeesh> You've eaten this?
> >>
> >> B
> > In the northeast, we have chow mein sandwiches....
> >
> > maxine in ri, who has never eaten one
> >
>
>
> Oooh, I have! Once. When I was a kid.
> They are on a hamburger bun, mostly cornstarch-thickened chicken
> broth with shreds of cooked chicken, big diagonals of sliced celery and
> onion and chow main noodles. It was a cheap Cantonese menu item in New
> England when I was growing up. Soggy, salty and just awful.
>
> gloria p


I used to love chow mein sandwiches as a kid.

In article >, says...
>
> Tracy wrote:
> > Jean B. wrote:
> >> maxine wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 10:50 am, bulka > wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 8, 6:46 am, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Also, Chinese fast food in St. Louis has other
> >>>>> peculiarities:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul_sandwich
> >>>>> --Bryan
> >>>> Yeesh> You've eaten this?
> >>>>
> >>>> B
> >>> In the northeast, we have chow mein sandwiches....
> >>>
> >>> maxine in ri, who has never eaten one
> >>>
> >> I've never heard of them. As you know, I live near Boston.
> >>
> >
> > Me neither and me too.
> > I did find this...
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_mein_sandwich
> > I guess it is more of a Rhode Island thing.
> > Tracy
>
> I was thinking that might be the case. It is interesting to see
> how the foods in even contiguous states can vary.

RI and SE MA are really a different country. Kind of why I love living
here.

Come on, where else could you have 1-1 access with your legislators? Or
know a sitting U.S. Senator on a first name basis?

In article > , dsi1
@spamworld.com says...
>
> T wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> notbob wrote:
> >>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
> >>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
> >>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
> >> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
> >> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
> >> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
> >> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
> >> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
> >> redeem it.
> >>> nb
> >>>
> >
> > Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
> > cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
> > were along for the ride.
>
> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
> of not living that long.
>
> >
> > And consider, pigs of that time are very different from pigs today. Pigs
> > today are bred for high protein and low fat purposes.
>
> I did not know this. In the future there will probably be a market for
> high priced, extra-fatty pig meat. Yummy!
>
> >
> >


There already is a market, hence the heirloom pig.

T wrote:

>>> And consider, pigs of that time are very different from pigs today. Pigs
>>> today are bred for high protein and low fat purposes.
>> I did not know this. In the future there will probably be a market for
>> high priced, extra-fatty pig meat. Yummy!
>>
>>>
>
>
> There already is a market, hence the heirloom pig.
>

Boutique pork? Cool!

>> notbob wrote:
>> > On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>> >
>> >> of butt in a huge vat of water....
>> >
>> >> pork is tender, he drains it well....
>> >
>> > Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
>>

I just got a flash of deja vu for a 80's (?) tuna commercial;
Their main selling point; "It DIDN'T taste like fish" !

( I wonder who came up with that theme ? )

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

> T wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
>>>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
>>>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
>>> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
>>> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
>>> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
>>> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
>>> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
>>> redeem it.
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>
>> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
>> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
>> were along for the ride.
>
> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
> of not living that long.
>

frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
muslims and jews:

Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>

....i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
utah or something.

he also addressed why the cow is sacred in india:

In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, Harris begins
with an explanation for why the hungry peasants of India do not kill and
eat the ´sacred¡ cows which roam the country at will. Does this make sense?

Cows are kept alive for the simple reason that killing them is economic
abortion. Cows are revered because they provide milk. Their dung can be
burned like peat to heat homes and cooking pots. Dung can be mixed with
other ingredients and spread like cement across the ground for flooring
material. The cows are far less costly than unaffordable tractors for
cultivating fields. Finally, cows that freely walk the streets eat most
anything, saving the cost of paying street cleaners.

<http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/15/230542.php>

i highly recommend the book reviewed above, available he

<http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-Witches-Riddles/dp/0679724680>

...which also addresses cargo cults and the phenomenon of the *potlatch*,
the savage male (some of you liberal arts types may remember the 'fierce
people,' the yanomamo) and the burning of witches, among other topics, in a
very sensible and entertaining way.

another good book by harris is concerned more directly with food (including
pigs and cows):

The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture

<http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cow-Abominable-Pig-Touchstone/dp/0671633082/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236965769&sr=1-14>

both books are convincing argued and fun to read.

your pal,
blake

On Mar 13, 10:53*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
> > T wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >>> notbob wrote:
> >>>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>
> >>>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
> >>>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
> >>>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
> >>> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
> >>> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
> >>> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
> >>> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
> >>> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
> >>> redeem it.
> >>>> nb
>
> >> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
> >> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
> >> were along for the ride.
>
> > I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
> > observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
> > is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
> > of not living that long.
>
> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
> muslims and jews:
>
> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>
> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
> place to raise pigs. *it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
> utah or something.
>
> he also addressed why the cow is sacred in india:
>
> In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, Harris begins
> with an explanation for why the hungry peasants of India do not kill and
> eat the ´sacred¡ cows which roam the country at will. Does this make sense?
>
> Cows are kept alive for the simple reason that killing them is economic
> abortion. Cows are revered because they provide milk. Their dung can be
> burned like peat to heat homes and cooking pots. Dung can be mixed with
> other ingredients and spread like cement across the ground for flooring
> material. The cows are far less costly than unaffordable tractors for
> cultivating fields. Finally, cows that freely walk the streets eat most
> anything, saving the cost of paying street cleaners.
>
> <http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/15/230542.php>
>
> i highly recommend the book reviewed above, available he
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-Witches-Riddles/dp/0679724680>
>
> ..which also addresses cargo cults and the phenomenon of the *potlatch*,
> the savage male (some of you liberal arts types may remember the 'fierce
> people,' the yanomamo) and the burning of witches, among other topics, in a
> very sensible and entertaining way.
>
> another good book by harris is concerned more directly with food (including
> pigs and cows):
>
> The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cow-Abominable-Pig-Touchstone/dp/0671633...>
>
> both books are convincing argued and fun to read.
>
> your pal,
> blake- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Resveratrol can help you to lead a long and healthy life so says many
doctors. Red wine alone does not supply enough resveratrol to achieve
the
full range of benefits because one glass of red wine has only about
1mg of resveratrol and you need about 250mg/day. You need to take
high potency resveratrol supplements to achieve the results
documented
in scientific studies.Resveratrol Supplements can also help you
control
your weight naturally by increasing energy, reducing cravings, and
limiting
your appetite.According to Wikipedia, Consumer Lab, an independent
dietary
supplement and over the counter products evaluation organization,
published a report on 13 November 2007 on the popular resveratrol
supplements. The organization reported that there exists a wide
range
in quality, dose, and price among the 13 resveratrol products
evaluated. The actual amount of resveratrol contained in the
different brands range from 2.2mg for Revatrol, which claimed to
have
400mg of "Red Wine Grape Complex", to 500mg for Biotivia.com
Transmax,
which is consistent with the amount claimed on the product's label.
Prices per 100mg of resveratrol ranged from less than $.30 for
products made by Biotivia.com, jarrow, and country life, to a high
of
$45.27 for the Revatrol brand.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > T wrote:

> >> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
> >> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
> >> were along for the ride.
> >
> > I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
> > observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
> > is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
> > of not living that long.

> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
> muslims and jews:
>
> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>
> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
> place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
> utah or something.

I always like to argue! From:

http://www.utah.com/stateparks/great...lake_facts.htm

Brine shrimp eggs are harvested commercially


> he also addressed why the cow is sacred in india:
>
> In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, Harris begins
> with an explanation for why the hungry peasants of India do not kill and
> eat the ³sacred² cows which roam the country at will. Does this make sense?
>
> Cows are kept alive for the simple reason that killing them is economic
> abortion. Cows are revered because they provide milk. Their dung can be
> burned like peat to heat homes and cooking pots. Dung can be mixed with
> other ingredients and spread like cement across the ground for flooring
> material. The cows are far less costly than unaffordable tractors for
> cultivating fields.
> another good book by harris is concerned more directly with food (including
> pigs and cows):
>
> The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cow-Abo...671633082/ref=
> sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236965769&sr=1-14>
>
> both books are convincing argued and fun to read.

Pho is a popular Vietnamese beef soup. However, it is quite recent for
the reason you mention. Cows were used in Vietnam as beasts of burden,
and were too valuable to kill for food. When the French came in, they
wanted beef, and were willing to pay. Some think that the word "Pho" is
of French origin (others think it is Chinese).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:27:28 -0700:


> Pho is a popular Vietnamese beef soup. However, it is quite
> recent for the reason you mention. Cows were used in Vietnam
> as beasts of burden, and were too valuable to kill for food.
> When the French came in, they wanted beef, and were willing to
> pay. Some think that the word "Pho" is of French origin
> (others think it is Chinese).

It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I believe, tho'
around here it seems to be "Foe" among English speakers. In passing, I
happen to like Pho a lot especially, to complicate the arguments, Pho Ga
made from chicken with white chicken meat.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
> Dan wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:27:28 -0700:
>
>
>> Pho is a popular Vietnamese beef soup. However, it is quite
>> recent for the reason you mention. Cows were used in Vietnam
>> as beasts of burden, and were too valuable to kill for food.
>> When the French came in, they wanted beef, and were willing to
>> pay. Some think that the word "Pho" is of French origin
>> (others think it is Chinese).
>
> It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I believe, tho'
> around here it seems to be "Foe" among English speakers. In passing, I
> happen to like Pho a lot especially, to complicate the arguments, Pho
> Ga made from chicken with white chicken meat.

Pho Ga is also my favorite, we make that often. My Vietnamese friend is
63 yrs old and she never had Pho Ga in Vietnam, they only had Pho Bo.
When I asked her why, she said they never ate chickens, she said they
were too valuable. I can not pronounce Pho the way she does. It is
like she is saying "fuh?", as if it is a question. lol


Becca

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I believe, tho'
> around here it seems to be "Foe" among English speakers. In passing, I
> happen to like Pho a lot especially, to complicate the arguments, Pho Ga
> made from chicken with white chicken meat.

Everybody but one person I've heard does the "foe" thing. That one guy
said his wife, who is from Asia, says it should be "fah".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> T wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
>>>>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
>>>>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
>>>> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
>>>> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
>>>> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
>>>> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
>>>> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
>>>> redeem it.
>>>>> nb
>>>>>
>>> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
>>> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
>>> were along for the ride.
>> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
>> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
>> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
>> of not living that long.
>>
>
> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
> muslims and jews:
>
> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>
> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
> place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
> utah or something.

That seem kinda shaky. Why would you need restrictions on an animal that
is unlikely and unsuited to an area anyway? I don't believe that these
restrictions specifically named the pig as a forbidden animal, as I
recall, it was a class of animals - with split hooves? If it's true that
the meat from these restricted animals were pretty safe to eat, then
what you cite may be a reasonable explanation.

My guess is that we'll never know the real reasons. However, the problem
with animals (and fuel!) competing for human food remains today, perhaps
we should forbid beef for being decadent and wasteful in natural
resources - that would seem to be logical. Chickens, I guess, might be
ok... :-)

>
> he also addressed why the cow is sacred in india:
>
> In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, Harris begins
> with an explanation for why the hungry peasants of India do not kill and
> eat the ´sacred¡ cows which roam the country at will. Does this make sense?
>
> Cows are kept alive for the simple reason that killing them is economic
> abortion. Cows are revered because they provide milk. Their dung can be
> burned like peat to heat homes and cooking pots. Dung can be mixed with
> other ingredients and spread like cement across the ground for flooring
> material. The cows are far less costly than unaffordable tractors for
> cultivating fields. Finally, cows that freely walk the streets eat most
> anything, saving the cost of paying street cleaners.
>
> <http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/15/230542.php>
>
> i highly recommend the book reviewed above, available he
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-Witches-Riddles/dp/0679724680>
>
> ..which also addresses cargo cults and the phenomenon of the *potlatch*,
> the savage male (some of you liberal arts types may remember the 'fierce
> people,' the yanomamo) and the burning of witches, among other topics, in a
> very sensible and entertaining way.
>
> another good book by harris is concerned more directly with food (including
> pigs and cows):
>
> The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cow-Abominable-Pig-Touchstone/dp/0671633082/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236965769&sr=1-14>
>
> both books are convincing argued and fun to read.

Thanks for the links.

>
> your pal,
> blake

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "James Silverton" > wrote:
>
>> It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I believe, tho'
>> around here it seems to be "Foe" among English speakers. In passing, I
>> happen to like Pho a lot especially, to complicate the arguments, Pho Ga
>> made from chicken with white chicken meat.
>
> Everybody but one person I've heard does the "foe" thing. That one guy
> said his wife, who is from Asia, says it should be "fah".
>

We've heard it pronounced this way too. Vietnam is so "far" away so you
have to go real "fah" to get a bowl of pho. Well actually, we got
several pho places within spitting distance in my little town. They're
not very pho away at all. :-)

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Everybody but one person I've heard does the "foe" thing. That one guy
> said his wife, who is from Asia, says it should be "fah".

The waiter at my favorite pho shop says the same thing.
Which raises the question of how it ever got to be
spelled as "pho" in the western alphabet.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:27:28 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>
>>>> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
>>>> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
>>>> were along for the ride.
>>>
>>> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
>>> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
>>> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
>>> of not living that long.
>
>> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
>> muslims and jews:
>>
>> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
>> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
>> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
>> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
>> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
>> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
>> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
>> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
>> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
>> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
>> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>>
>> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
>> place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
>> utah or something.
>
> I always like to argue! From:
>
> http://www.utah.com/stateparks/great...lake_facts.htm
>
> Brine shrimp eggs are harvested commercially
>

yabbut, brine shrimp ain't for humans. (actually i was vacillating between
naming utah and minnesota, but i figured i'd turn out to be wrong in either
case, so i gave our mormon brothers the nod.)

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:22:50 GMT, James Silverton wrote:

> Dan wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:27:28 -0700:
>
>> Pho is a popular Vietnamese beef soup. However, it is quite
>> recent for the reason you mention. Cows were used in Vietnam
>> as beasts of burden, and were too valuable to kill for food.
>> When the French came in, they wanted beef, and were willing to
>> pay. Some think that the word "Pho" is of French origin
>> (others think it is Chinese).
>
> It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I believe, tho'
> around here it seems to be "Foe" among English speakers. In passing, I
> happen to like Pho a lot especially, to complicate the arguments, Pho Ga
> made from chicken with white chicken meat.

i thought it was 'fuh.'

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:46:28 GMT:

>> Dan wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:27:28 -0700:
>>
>>> Pho is a popular Vietnamese beef soup. However, it is quite
>>> recent for the reason you mention. Cows were used in
>>> Vietnam as beasts of burden, and were too valuable to kill
>>> for food. When the French came in, they wanted beef, and
>>> were willing to pay. Some think that the word "Pho" is of
>>> French origin (others think it is Chinese).
>>
>> It should, rather appropriately, be pronounced "Foo", I
>> believe, tho' around here it seems to be "Foe" among English
>> speakers. In passing, I happen to like Pho a lot especially,
>> to complicate the arguments, Pho Ga made from chicken with
>> white chicken meat.

> i thought it was 'fuh.'

I'm certainly not going to argue what is right and proper :-) However, I
seem to hear "Foe" most often and it's what I use when I have Pho Ga at
my favorite place: Pho Nam on Shady Grove Rd in Gaithersburg, MD. Of
course, even if the waiters seem to know me, I also give the number (17)
on the menu. But that's the safest thing for me to do for oriental
menues if numbers are available.



--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:29:09 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
>>>>>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
>>>>>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
>>>>> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
>>>>> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
>>>>> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
>>>>> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
>>>>> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
>>>>> redeem it.
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
>>>> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
>>>> were along for the ride.
>>> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
>>> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
>>> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
>>> of not living that long.
>>>
>>
>> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
>> muslims and jews:
>>
>> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
>> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
>> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
>> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
>> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
>> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
>> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
>> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
>> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
>> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
>> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>>
>> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
>> place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
>> utah or something.
>
> That seem kinda shaky. Why would you need restrictions on an animal that
> is unlikely and unsuited to an area anyway? I don't believe that these
> restrictions specifically named the pig as a forbidden animal, as I
> recall, it was a class of animals - with split hooves? If it's true that
> the meat from these restricted animals were pretty safe to eat, then
> what you cite may be a reasonable explanation.
>

there's more to it than that brief explanation, but that's the nut.

but for mammals, it's mainly two characteristics:

In Judaism, Kashrut (kosher) is the set of dietary laws governing what may
or may not be consumed. These laws are based upon the Torah and the Talmud.
According to Jewish law, animals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and
have cloven hooves are kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the
other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven
hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically
excluded.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloven-hoof>

....so really, pigs and camels (i don't know what the **** a hyrax is). i
guess if you live in the desert and want to go somewhere, it's also a bad
idea to start eating your camels

> My guess is that we'll never know the real reasons. However, the problem
> with animals (and fuel!) competing for human food remains today, perhaps
> we should forbid beef for being decadent and wasteful in natural
> resources - that would seem to be logical. Chickens, I guess, might be
> ok... :-)
>
<snip>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>

i hope you check 'em out. tons o' fun.

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:22:45 GMT:

>> blake murphy wrote:
> In Judaism, Kashrut (kosher) is the set of dietary laws
> governing what may or may not be consumed. These laws are
> based upon the Torah and the Talmud. According to Jewish law,
> animals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven
> hooves are kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the
> other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no
> cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are
> specifically excluded.

>> i hope you check 'em out. tons o' fun.

I don't know the answer and it's just a question but do observant Jews
eat rabbit? The hyrax is kind of like a hamster I believe and wouldn't
have much meat.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:

> I don't know the answer and it's just a question but do observant Jews
> eat rabbit? The hyrax is kind of like a hamster I believe and wouldn't
> have much meat.
>

No, they don't eat rabbit. It's not Kosher.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:22:45 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>(i don't know what the **** a hyrax is)

You made me look. They're kinda cute!
http://www.travelphotos.in/thumbs/lr...3111_hyrax.jpg


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:35:13 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:22:45 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>(i don't know what the **** a hyrax is)
>
> You made me look. They're kinda cute!
> http://www.travelphotos.in/thumbs/lr...3111_hyrax.jpg

yeah, i looked, too. looks like you'd have to have quite a few on hand to
make a dinner.

your pal,
blake