I've often thought something similar to the chef's thought, but somewhat different: foodie-ism is the result of attention being paid to food that belongs properly to marijuana.

A big chunk of a generation grew up knowing that you could get status (that is to say, sex and/or approbation) by buying and consuming and sharing or selling some Panama Red, or Acupulco Gold, or Thai, or That Rare Alaska Cold, and spreading 'round that knowledge that you were especially cool when your "guy got something special for you". I think of this every time I hear or read of someone talking about how primo their ingredients are, maaan.

I was glancingly in that world about thirty years ago; I don't know anything much about the current dope world---are people generally as insufferable about Haze v. Widow v. Skunk v. Pile-of-Switchgrass as I get the impression they may be? How do they compare with people who act like you're dung because you can't afford grass-fed beef?

Given how mental set affects the marijuana experience, all that stuff probably did some good even if it were total bullshit...I'm sure the same holds for food, and especially wine.

Tom Colicchio has the personality of limp lettuce--iceberg, not Romaine. That's why no one buys his books. He's not charismatic (he should never be in the same shot at Tony Bourdain) and he's not warm. His crankiness is his sole human-like quality. In meatspace, he's probably a great guy, but his TV persona isn't endearing. Tim Gunn, he's not.

But Hepola's lackluster interviewing skills don't delve into any real probing questions. Why didn't she ask about his loss of his Michelin star (that's the real difference between him and Gordon Ramsey--Ramsey actually does a little cooking on his show)?

To each his own. I personally would rather spend an evening with Colicchio than any of the people you mention. There's having personality, and then there's having an excess of it. Colicchio is knowledgeable, but also down-to-earth. Maybe you'd find him more engaging on TV if he yelled and threw things, but most mature adults prefer to leave that kind of stuff behind at a certain point.

I think he's one of the reasons Top Chef rises above a lot of other reality / competition shows; the ratio of clashing personalities to demonstrations of actual skill is inverted. If he had to be the centre of attention and manufacture conflict in the kitchen to make the show interesting, it would lose its credibility (such as it is), and its audience.

I admire the guest judges, and I like Padma, Ted, and Gail. But Chef Tom is the only *regular* judge who can judge how the food was cooked as well as how it tastes. He brings a wealth of knowledge to the judges' table, which, with all due respect, the other regular judges do not possess to the same degree; and he also brings consistency to the table. The guest judges, although quite knowledgeable, are not consistent from one show to the next, so it would not be best to rely solely upon their decisions.

The last thing we need is a constest that is judged by the fans, closely followed by a contest that is judged by food critics who have very little experience in a professional kitchen, followed closely by a different panel of celebrity chefs every week. I'll accept Chef Tom's decisions every time.

This isn't really the place for me to criticize the show, but I will say that I'm glad Chef Tom realizes how strenuous the competition is for the contestants. For example, I don't see any point in making them compete while they are deprived of sleep. But I can understand why Chef Tom might be a little frustrated with the contestants when they cannot answer a simple, straightfoward question like, "Why is yours the winning dish?" I have yet to see any of them give the most appropriate answer: "Because it tastes the best. You'll see."

Keep up the good work, Chef!

for a lot of straight folk as well.

He is really attractive. And he would probably think this kind of attention in the face of his real accomplishments is kinda funny.

Which makes him even hotter.

If it is truly all about the food, then you really should do all of the tasting "blind": without identifying which chef prepared which dish.

The judges' biases (conscious or unconscious) are evident each week. Blind tasting would go a LONG way to making the judging more credible.

It's the same concept as blind auditions for musicians. The results can be surprising.

I know Tom has said over and over that they judge based on each night's performance, not as an accumulation, but this seems so ridiculous to me. This season we have a person in the final 3 who has been at the losers' table in nearly every episode. So, each night, she hasn't been quite *the worst.* But how does this make a Top Chef? If she manages to cook better than the other two on this one particular night, she will be the Top Chef despite having served underseasoned canned beans and laksa that tasted of campfire. I'm not arguing that there's any particular conspiracy going on to push her through, though I think you could argue that the judges are all scared of her, but this rule just doesn't make much sense to me, because being a Top Chef is an accumulation.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

I guess if you go by Tom's definition of a chef then Julia Childs wasn't? In my book though she was. I wonder if they did blind taste test if that would affect the winners? I like Tom Colicchio, but there is no doubt that being a chef is a male dominated profession and the men stick together. We all know the best "chefs" are Mom's! :D It's sad though that in 2008 there are still so many glass ceilings that women have to confront. Sexism still seems to be okay, as well as ageism, but it's the same prejudice as racism. If you're a woman and a minority unless you are given a leg up with Affirmative Action then you have a long climb. Then again the minority men get the Affirmative Action spots more so then the women and the reason is always because women have children and therefore have to stay home, or if they don't then they aren't as focused. The majority of women with children have to work with this economy, and a lot get great satisfaction from doing both, but they are still the ones who have to juggle the two. It's still a man's world.

I don't see this getting any better as sexism in the work place has made a huge comeback. Men who have wifes, mothers' or sisters' see this all the time. Still if a woman is strong she's a biatch, if a man is then he's just strong and competent.