out of touch?

[realthog]

Could someone please hint to the writers at the New York Times's "Dining & Wine" section that there's an economic recession under way? Here's from the e-headlines today:

Great Meals for Two, Under $100 (It's Possible)
By FRANK BRUNI
Getting food of some distinction in full-service restaurants and staying below $99 isn't too easy, but it can be done.

Y'know, I've been lying awake at nights preoccupied with the difficulties of finding a decent restaurant meal for under a hundred bucks. Oh dearie, dearie me. Where to turn? And now at last, thanks to those doughty folks at the NYT, I've found a few pointers . . .

Comments

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Nauseating, yes.

But to the wealthy this is a deal. I know folks in California who think nothing about dropping a grand on dinner. Ho hum, ain't life grand, wonder what the little people are doing tonight?

We never eat out. Too expensive. I freak out if a meal costs more than $20. I prefer handling my own food, fewer bacteria, fewer rat droppings and crickets, not to mention cockroaches. Then there're the sundry excretions of pissed-off chefs and cooks and waiters, which can quite possibly end up as relish on your dish, just on account of . . . whatever mood the staff are in that day.

Just ain't worth the dollar out-lay.

I know, I'm no fun. But I do love a good picnic or BBQ.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Personally I enjoy eating out (the rare occasions we do!), but not if the bill's going to be a major heart-stopper.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

But everything's so expensive these days, that eating out is a heart stopper. At least it is for me. I'd rather spend the money on something else, like books. Yes. Books.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"I'd rather spend the money on something else, like books."

But books are an essential, like water. We're talking about luxuries here.