Troublesome Friends - by Kathie Jenkins

              

Women Are More Trouble at Dinner than Men,

and Other Tales
-------------------
By Kathie Jenkins*

 

 I'm never short of dining partners. Much as I'd like to believe the lure is my charming personality, the cruel truth is most eat with me because I pick up the tab.

Being able to treat people to a nice meal on the company credit card is one of the best things about my job. But because I eat out so often, I've learned that diners have a lot of prejudices and peccadilloes. 

I have what I call "my regulars," those who love eating at all types of restaurants and don't care if I tell them what to order or if I eat off their plates. They get that I'm working and don't expect things to be the same as if they were dining out for pleasure. But not everyone is as understanding. Over the years, I've learned that Dr. Jekylls can easily turn into Ms. Hydes. I hate to say it, but I've found that women are much more work than men. Meet a few of them: 

THE CONTROL FREAK 

A good friend but a dining nightmare, C.F. always asks to move to a different table, takes forever to make up her mind on what to order and asks to try every red on the wine list before she decides on a glass. Inevitably, she sends something back and then turns to me and says, "You know, I'm doing this for you, so you can see how they handle these situations." I usually want to kill her. 

THE CALCULATOR 

After a few meals together, I began to notice that this woman was only interested in eating at nice places and always homed in on the most expensive entree on the menu. She was always careful to leave with a doggie bag. The final straw came when she called a few hours before we were to meet at a restaurant and said she was bringing along her husband, whom I didn't know, "because he likes to eat at nice restaurants, too." 

THE PICKY EATER 

P.E. not only has food issues but also is completely self-absorbed. She doesn't eat meat, cheese, bread or anything with eyes and needs to know the provenance of every ingredient. She'll reject a dish based on texture or just because it sounds "icky." Listening to her pepper the server with questions sets me on edge. "Is the soup made with vegetable stock?" "Can I have soy cheese instead of goat cheese?" "Can I have more salsa and avocado on my tostada instead of the sour cream and chicken?" And she's still never satisfied. What a surprise. 

THE LUSH 

We weren't at the table more than a minute when this one started snapping her fingers for a double brandy. And then another. Soon, she was raising her voice and discussing my reviews in front of the server. When her food arrived, she barely touched it, preferring an after-dinner brandy instead. Needless to say, I never invited her to eat with me again. 

MISS SALMON & GOAT CHEESE 

Miss S.G.C. is a perennial dieter and always ordered the salmon and goat cheese salad when it was on every menu in town. If she couldn't have it, she pouted. She always ordered dressing on the side and never liked the idea of anyone tasting "her" food. I finally cut her off my list. 

MR. MEAT & POTATOES 

Unfortunately, I can't do the same with Mr. Meat & Potatoes, who is only  interested in steak. I happen to be married to this guy. He eats out with me only if he knows he can score a good steak, and he really isn't interested in sharing. So, I'm always sure to ask for a nice big taste and perhaps another -- just to torture him.

 ______________________________ 

*  Kathie Jenkins, Restaurant Critic 
   Pioneer Press (posted 5/16/2012) 

Romney's Car Problem - by Los Angeles Times

  



Romney's car problem                 
----------------              Los Angeles Times Editorial      March 19, 2012  

 [By insisting that the auto industry bailout was a mistake, he hands Obama a clear line of attack.] 

Mitt Romney has car trouble. No, we're not referring to the notorious 1983 incident in which he forced the family dog to ride in a crate strapped to the top of his station wagon, but a matter likely to hurt him far more with blue-collar voters: his contention that the bailouts of the U.S. automotive industry by both Presidents George W. Bush and Obama were a bad idea. 

If a speech last week by Vice President Joe Biden is any indicator, the Obama campaign is going to use the auto bailouts as a sledgehammer against Romney, should the latter emerge as the GOP nominee. Rallying a union crowd in Ohio, Biden slammed Romney for claiming that bailing out the Detroit automakers would turn them into the "living dead." 

 "Gov. Romney's predictions of a living dead? We have now living proof: a million jobs saved, 200,000 new jobs created," Biden said, to cheers. With Romney trying to sell himself as a better steward of the economy than Obama, his demonstrably wrong conclusions about the bailouts are grist for the Obama attack mill (the other GOP presidential contenders also opposed the bailouts, but the Obama campaign is focusing its criticisms on Romney). In 2008, Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that began, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Not only has the industry failed to vanish, but GM has reported record profits and regained its crown as the world's biggest automaker. 

Romney compounds his problem by continuing to insist the bailouts were a mistake. His argument is twofold: The companies should have been allowed to go through a "managed bankruptcy" without government intervention, which would have reduced taxpayer risk. And, because the restructuring that followed the bailouts ended up handing large ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler to the United Auto Workers, "the president gave the companies to the UAW." Both propositions are disingenuous. A bailout-free bankruptcy would indeed have been a preferable option in 2008, but it wasn't a realistic one. The automakers needed a big infusion of cash to stay afloat during bankruptcy proceedings, and no bank was willing to provide it, making Washington the lender of last resort. Had the government failed to act, not only would the two companies likely have been liquidated but they would have taken much of the U.S. auto sector — parts makers and other suppliers — with them, causing devastating job losses. Meanwhile, the UAW ended up with big shares in the automakers because the companies were so deeply indebted to the union. That would have been the outcome even if Romney's bailout-free bankruptcy had taken place. 

If ever there were an issue begging for a Romney flip-flop, the auto bailouts would be it. By uncharacteristically sticking with a losing position, Romney could be handing the keys to manufacturing states to Obama.