cúisle mo chroí

This is heartbreaking:

Police ‘forced’ man to identify mutilated body of murdered nephew, court told

Police effectively forced the uncle of a teenage murder victim to identify the badly mutilated body against his will, the High Court has heard.
Alan Steele also claimed officers did not care because they wrongly believed his dead nephew, David McIlwaine, was a member of the Loyalist Volunteer Force.

Mr Steele made the allegations as part of his negligence case against the Chief Constable for psychological injuries he says were inflicted by the identification process.

His 18-year-old nephew was stabbed to death along with Andrew Robb (19) in February 2000. Their bodies were dumped by a road near Tandragee, Co Armagh.

The double killing came weeks after alleged Ulster Volunteer Force leader Richard Jameson was shot dead in nearby Portadown.
Giving evidence in his claim for damages, Mr Steele said a police sergeant had asked him to identify Mr McIlwaine because his parents could not be contacted.

It was stressed in court how Mr McIlwaine had no paramilitary or criminal connections.
Mr Steele, who told of suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, said he was still hoping the victim’s father Paul would arrive by the time he got to the mortuary.

He claimed a senior detective approached him and repeated a warning about how the parents would find out if he did not go through with the process.

“I said to him this was wrong; I shouldn’t be doing this, Paul should be doing this.

“I felt that I was stealing from Paul,” Mr Steele told the court.

“I asked him to wait for Paul. He just walked away from me.

“I was crying, I was shaking.”

Questioned by his barrister, Ronnie Bentley QC, Mr Steele alleged he was not told about the injuries inflicted on the victims.

Clearly emotional in the witness box, he recalled: “He was stabbed about the head. The head was covered in blood.
“They had cut off part of his face and I could see into his skull.
“Because he had lost so much blood it was like a skeleton.”

During cross-examination by David Ringland QC, for the Chief Constable, he denied being “obsessed” by a search for justice since the murder.

But Mr Ringland pointed to expert medical opinion which he said suggested “bitterness and seething anger” connected to Mr Steele’s belief in a police cover-up.

Mr Ringland insisted that the senior detective’s evidence would be that at the stage of identifying the bodies no paramilitary connection had been established.

Pressing further, the barrister claimed that Mr Steele had in fact volunteered to identify the teen’s body.

Mr Ringland, who also insisted the injuries were made clear to Mr Steele in advance, added: “What you have said is that you were really forced to go to the morgue.

“I have to put it to you that quite the opposite situation prevailed when you were approached.”

According to a senior mortuary technician sheets of paper were also covering the most severely part of the victims face, Mr Ringland added.

But Mr Steele insisted: “That’s an absolute lie.”

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.

Here is the list of courses from our dinner on Tuesday night at Momfuku Ko. We did the best we could trying to reconstruct the menu from memory later that evening:

buttered biscuit with black pepper and miring glaze. chicarone with
togarashi. lobster and turnip cake over black garlic puree with meyer
lemon. deep fried curried lamb with curry mustard cream.

long island fluke with spiced buttermilk, poppy seeds, and chives

spanish mackerel with radish sprout, mustard oil, rice ball cracker

oxtail and amaro consomme with daikon tortellini with caramelized
onion/braised oxtail. with torn basil, micro cilantro and bean
sprouts

smoked soft boiled egg with caviar, fingerling potato chips, onion
soubise, some kind of vinegar, and chervil

hand torn pasta with snail chicken and sausage, pecorino romano,
crispy chicken skin, and black truffles

almond crusted skate with cerignola olives, fried baby cauliflower,
and foamed almond milk

shaved frozen fois gras with pine nut brittle, lychee, and reisling gelee

duck breast with crispy skin and pomegranate glaze, mustard greens,
sous vide then deep fried duck leg, ginger/honey braised turnip with
pumpernickel powder and country pate.

spiced white wine sorbet with asian pear and elderberry syrup

ricotta curd and goat cheese cheesecake, dried cranberries, pumpkin
seed brittle., and winter squash sorbet

The (fantastic) organization Reprieve today announced the release of a UN report (click that link to download the full report) into secret detention that exposes UK collusion in secret detention and torture. The investigation found, among other things, that the UK knew of the US’ rendition practices in 2002 but continued to hand them suspects with no process until well into 2004, and the UK knowingly received info from prisoners held in US ghost detention centers.

Surely the fact that the British government has never been held to account for its actions (torture, political assassinations, sectarian murders, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries and shoot-to-kill come to mind) in the North of Ireland gives rise to situations like this. An excerpt from the Reprieve release:

Worryingly, the report indicates that the UK intelligence services lack the oversight that would prevent crimes like complicity in torture from recurring in the future. It recommends that:

“To ensure accountability in intelligence co-operation, truly independent intelligence review and oversight mechanisms should be established… such mechanisms should have access to any information, including sensitive information…”

The report warns of the dangers of intelligence services keeping secrets from the bodies that are charged with policing them.

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve Director commented:

“Sadly, our government has teamed up with unscrupulous, Mafia-like regimes that are in the habit of disappearing people, using information extracted by violence, keeping secrets and protecting their thugs and cronies. It is shameful that it takes a UN report to reveal these shoddy practices to the British people. The victims are still waiting for an apology. ”

You’d almost think he was talking about the recent conflict in the North, wouldn’t you? Governments like the UK and the US will continue to get away with this until we work together to break the culture of impunity that allows this to continue to happen.

I had the pleasure of attending a discussion with graphic journalist Joe Sacco last night at the Brooklyn Public Library. It was both my first visit to the library and the first time I’ve heard Sacco talk about his work.

Footnotes in Gaza chronicles Sacco’s quest to uncover the truth about what happened during two incidents in Khan Younis and Rafah in November 1956, when a large number of Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers. He was compelled to delve further into what was obviously a significant event that has since been relegated to a “footnote” in the history books, but surely helped to “plant seeds of anger and grief that lead to present-day events.”

Competing truths, how the past lives on in peoples’ memories, the importance of remembering the past and the impact it has on the present and future–it was impossible not to think of the current efforts to develop a truth recovery process in the North of Ireland–and in particular the work that I am trying to do with Relatives for Justice. The following excerpt is taken from the introduction and was read at last night’s event:

As someone in Gaza told me, “events are continuous.” Palestinians never seem to have the luxury of digesting one tragedy before the next one is upon them. When I was in Gaza, younger people often viewed my research into the events of 1956 with bemusement. What good would tending to history do them when they were under attack and their homes were being demolished now? But the past and the present cannot be so easily disentangled; they are part of a remorseless continuum, a historical blur. Perhaps it is worth our while to freeze that churning forward movement and examine one or two events that were not only a disaster for the people who lived them but might also be instructive for those who want to understand why and how–as El-Rantisi said–hatred was “planted” in hearts.

Finally! We got hacked, causing all of our sites to go down and up and down again…and resulting in a lot of headaches. In any event, it’s a new year: goodbye Bluehost (you suck), hello new posts!

From Relatives for Justice:

Speaking in response to the DUP’s motion concerning the re-definition of a victim of the conflict Relatives for Justice Chairperson Clara Reilly issued the following statement;

‘Jeffrey Donaldson, and the DUP, are pandering to a very small constituency of people bereaved that are not representative of the broader community of those affected by the conflict who, unfortunately, have refused to move forward with the rest of us.

‘Essentially this is an anti-agreement group - ironically created and exploited by the DUP during its opposition to the agreement.

‘Jeffrey Donaldson knows full well that this motion is doomed to failure in that both the SDLP and Sinn Fein will reject it on the basis that it is selective and somewhat hypocritical given that the British army and the RUC were also perpetrators of violence.

‘The reality is that this is more about looking over the shoulder and assuaging this constituency that the DUP can out Allister Jim Allister.

‘He needs to stop manipulating people’s grief, hurt and pain for short-term political gain and show real leadership and not the failed agendas of the past.

‘Jeffrey Donaldson should know better. He is creating a false expectation for many of these families that will effectively add to their trauma. He needs to be more responsible and show mature political leadership.

Jeffrey Donaldson, and the DUP, need to stop refighting the conflict through victims. We all deserve better.

‘Indeed he has a moral duty not to mislead bereaved families.

‘As Junior Minister, and on a daily basis, he supported and implemented the current legislation defining victims and survivors that is inclusive and which has widespread community support. This was a positive contribution.

‘In terms of the motion it will only further divide those affected by the conflict from all backgrounds at a time when we are collectively trying to address the legacy of the past in a constructive, positive and inclusive way.’ ENDS

Max and I just returned from a short but sweet few days in and around Traverse City, Michigan, where he did a couple of Freshman in the Kitchen events. On the drive up, I noticed signs for at least three Michigan counties named after Irish ones–Roscommon, Wexford, and Antrim–which made me smile.

On Thursday evening, Max taught a cooking class for about 30 people from the Traverse City Chamber of Commerce’s Young Professionals group. The demonstration was held at The Village at Grand Traverse Commons. Billed as a “beautiful solution to urban sprawl,” the Village is a huge redevelopment and reuse project of the site of the former Traverse City State Hospital/Northern Michigan Asylum (opened in 1885 and closed in 1989) and its dozens of outbuildings. The site itself is 63 acres, located within 480 acres of parks, arboretum and hiking and biking trails. About half of Building 50 (the former hospital) has been completed, and was designed to be multi-use and mixed income. The basement and first floors are home to the “Mercato”–retails shops, cafés and restaurants with a local emphasis. The second floor is reserved for business/office space, and the third floor and attic are apartments of various sizes and costs (so as to promote the use of the space for people of different economic levels). It is a really beautiful place, and it is hard to imagine the amount of work that went into renovations (although a walk past the undeveloped part of the quarter-mile long Building 50 provides some insight for comparison.) Apartments are also available to rent by the night or by the week for those wishing to vacation in the area. The photo to the left is of Max doing his cooking demo in one of the condos.

I couldn’t help but think of my friend Máirtín and how interested he would be in this project–particularly when we were told that the Village is a designated “Renaissance Zone.” Michigan created the designation in 1996 as an attempt to stimulate economic growth in certain areas; this means that residents and business owners here basically do not have to pay local or state taxes. Talk about an incentive! Some of the small businesses located in the renovated outbuildings include bakeries, a fair trade organic coffee roastery, a bike shop and a winery. I was interested to learn more about how *actually* accessible the Village is for low-income people and small businesses, but we were not there long enough for me to find out. It certainly seemed idyllic, so much so that I couldn’t stop thinking about “The Lottery” while I was there :).

On Friday, Max did a signing at the Bel Lago Winery in Cedar, Michigan. It was my first visit to a winery, and aside from the first glass of rosé (sorry-not really my taste), the wine was pretty good. Charlie Edson, the chief winemaker, took us on a tour of the whole process, and we were even able to “thief” some wine still aging in oak barrels in the basement. It was a really great time, and it was really exciting to see how much pride they felt about their wine, about the growing of the grapes and the winemaking process. Hopefully Max can make it back up there again soon–maybe even to do a harvest dinner at Bel Lago…

The following is an article by Derrick Jensen from Orion Magazine that I read yesterday and wanted to put out there in the hopes that more people will read it. I also need to say that I have never read any of Jensen’s books, because ironically enough, I have always associated him with the “lifestyle activists” that he writes about here. Hmmm…

WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.

Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.

Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”

Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.

I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.

Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.

The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”

The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.

The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

LAist.com has just published my friend Eli’s interview with chef and Ford’s Filling Station owner Ben Ford. Read the article here, and then go to the website to leave comments so Eli can make this a regular thing:

Ben Ford, head chef and owner of Culver City’s Ford’s Filling Station speaks of the farmer’s market and its farmers with great reverence. Chef Ford grew up with his hands in the soil, gardening from a very young age so his respect for the food grown by the farmers comes naturally.

It’s this connection between the grower, the food and the dishes he creates, that he honors by utilizing the farmer’s market products. Ford’s menu can change daily, depending on what he has fresh on hand, has selected from the farmer’s market or has delivered from a select group of trusted farms he regularly visits.

Ford’s Filling Station led the emergence of Culver City as a dining destination and Chef Ford has been at the forefront of the Taste of the Nation event, held in Culver City for the past 5 years.

On a cloudy “June-Gloom” Wednesday morning, LAist caught up with Ford as he shopped at the Santa Monica farmer’s market. Dressed in Chef pants and a Ford’s Filling station T-shirt, the upbeat chef moved through the market, stopping to talk with several of his favorite farmers as he shopped.

Ford spoke about how the farmer’s market influences his cooking style and his process of using the fresh produce he buys when conceptualizing dishes. He let LAist in on where he buys his favorite leeks, his thoughts on organic certification, what drew him to open his restaurant in Culver City and his process for teaching chefs in the kitchen.

When you go to the market, does the market influence your cooking ideas, or do your ideas drive your purchases?

It’s very infrequent that it’s the latter. Most of the time I’m going in and trying to work with what looks good that day. Sometimes in anticipation of certain seasons you might go in there differently with more intent. I’m always there looking for the things that I think provide the most bang for the buck on the menu as far as quality and flavor. Plus there are about 10-12 ingredients on my menu right now that I cant get anywhere else besides at the farmer’s market. They run throughout my whole menu.

Why do you buy items from the market specifically as opposed to having them delivered from a vendor?

Some of the reasons why I buy stuff at the Farmer’s Market is because there is a quality of the product there that you are looking for that you want to hand pick. And the farmer’s market is one of the best ways of being able to do that. The vegetables there are even better quality that what the purveyor can bring you.

Are there certain items you only will buy from the Farmer’s Market?

At any given time there are 10-12 ingredients I use that I can only get through the farmer’s market. I have my core ten (farmers) that I buy from and then another 5 or 6 I keep my eye on. I get these wonderful long leaks from Windrose farms. She really takes a lot of care in how she grows them and they are a thing of pride for her. They are incredible and then they are gone! They just went out of season. That’s an example of something that’s really special at the farmer’s market because yes, you can get leeks year round pretty much, but these, because of the care put in to them and their seasonality and how they are taken care of are just beautiful.

Another example is these red frill mustard greens from McGrath and these tiny red and white onions that I love. No matter how many times you might explain it to a purveyor they won’t understand what it is. Plus the quality is that much better and they are grown with care and consideration.

We are also getting duck eggs, turkey eggs and pheasant eggs and guinea hen eggs, and chicken eggs, from Peter Schaner at Schaner Farms. And we are using a lot of those in our brunch menu to sort of extend the egg offerings. And that’s been a nice addition.

We are getting most of our lettuce from Coleman Farm. He grows a lot of different kinds of lettuce that you can build salads with. It seems like it’s almost made for building salad combinations.

How much does the personal relationship with the farmer figure into your decision to shop at the Farmer’s Market?

The thing about the farmer’s market is those guys really care about what they are doing. Another farmer, I don’t know them personally and I’ve never been to their farms. These guys, I’ve been to their farms. I’ve seen how much pride they take in the growing.

Does Certified Organic matter to you when you are buying ingredients for your restaurant?

Whether 100% it’s organic or not doesn’t really even really matter that much to me as long as they are taking pride in doing the right thing. There might be a lot of reasons why they can’t get certification. Maybe it’s a family owned business for 6 generations and they’ve always farmed it the same way and they’ve always done a great job at what they do. But that doesn’t mean they were doing the wrong thing or shouldn’t have a place in what we are trying to do as chefs.

So you just purchased about 15 pounds of these beautiful heirloom tomatoes. With these tomatoes, what’s the process of these coming back into the restaurant and then ending up on the menu?

Well first off all I love the three colors together and so I think the fact that they are all tasting really good right now is a unique day for me anyhow. So I really want to combine all of them into a really simple tomato salad. I’m going to totally let it speak for itself. With these guys really…garlic is going to come into play a little bit. I might do a really good bruschetta with them. Or maybe a bulgur salad. And if I marinate them I’m not going to use anything emulsified on these. It’s definitely going to be a very light vinaigrette just seasoned right with a little bit of salt and pepper. Salt and pepper is going to be even more important than the vinaigrette I put on it.

Who are you using to screen new dishes before they go on the menu? Entire staff? Kitchen staff only? Select people you trust?

Just me. It goes on really fast.

Are there any ingredients that define your cooking?

It’s always changing. My cooks are always laughing at me because last year it was fennel. This year it’s definitely onions. The onions I am going after because there is a subtle sweetness to them I can use in my food. I can caramelize them a little bit.

Do you fall in love with an ingredient and then try to do as many things with it as you possibly can?

Yeah, because it’ll be gone tomorrow and then you turn around (to the farmer) and you’re like “you don’t have that?”

What do you say to someone who says I can’t afford to shop at the Farmer’s Market or it’s an intimidating place for me and I don’t know what I’m doing when I’m there?

There is a way of life that I think people are returning to and sort of learning how enjoyable it is to forage for your ingredients to build a meal. To go buy bread from the person who makes really good bread, then go to the market and get your vegetables and then go to your meat or fish monger … those processes are a way of living your life with a little more rhythm. That way of life slows us down a little bit and is good for everyone. You can shop around easily at a farmer’s markets. They are still competitively pricing and if you are buying what’s plentiful at the market, there are lots of good deals to be had.

When you opened up Ford’s Filing Station, you were one of the first to come down to Culver City. At first it wasn’t this vibrant area with tons of restaurants. What drew you to Culver City?

The buildings next to me were vacant. And across the street where Rush and Gyenari are were vacant buildings. When I lived in Cheviot Hills, I’d invite over people who were potential investors for a BBQ and then tell them we were going on a beer run and just whip by (the current location of Ford’s Filling Station), and say hey, there’s the place, want to go look at it? And nobody would get out. And they were all like “no we aren’t interested. Anywhere but here.”

But (Culver City) had the studio, the cool hotel, this great city hall, they had developed the streets and it looked nice. I knew a movie theater was going in, I knew Kirk Douglas Theater was going in, and so in that way, I wasn’t worried about the neighborhood. I thought I’d grow with the neighborhood. When I first developed this menu I developed it for the people that live in this neighborhood. I didn’t expect this to become a destination location for Los Angeles.

So you want to design a restaurant that’s for everybody. My idea was to not overpower them. I wanted to have a concept that had some flexibility so we could evolve with them. Coming in with a high profile restaurant I didn’t want them to think I was trying to change their town. I was sensitive to the people that lived here.

When you are teaching your chefs in the kitchen, is it a process of you letting them run free and reeling them back in if something is not up to your standards or do you begin step by step and have them follow so its all uniform?

I don’t really ever start step by step. I want to see how certain guys will put their arms around a position. (I want to see) if someone understands that area fairly quickly and if you give someone some freedom you can see what they are more capable of.

So in the beginning I’ll throw guys into a station that isn’t that difficult. And then you teach them the salads but you don’t stop them from starting to peek at what the pizza guy is doing. And when they aren’t busy you never stop them from peeking down the line and letting them get interested in that. Because if you see those peeks, you know they are interested. You see they want to get better and you can then nurture that. But if you never give them the chance and only show them you want them to do A-B-C, you may not get those chances to see a glimpse of what potential have there.

Now that this restaurant row has sprung up around you, is there any competition between you and Chef Akasha Richmond of Akasha and Jason Travi of Fraiche? Are you surveying the entire LA restaurant landscape or just doing your own thing?

Well we brought all these new cooks into the neighborhood. And you start off with diner cooks and these waffle house cooks because you are breaking new ground. It doesn’t matter who you are, to a certain extent it was hard to get cooks and waiters to come down here in the beginning so we found ourselves training staff for the whole neighborhood. Now we are kind of trading back and forth and it’s all fun and good. Their styles are different. I think there is an idea that we should all be really good at what we do so we can get more people down here.

What’s a restaurant in LA that you are constantly returning to and why?

I like going places where it gets my wheel turning a little bit. I really don’t eat that much for sustenance and I really am out there for an experience. And it really doesn’t have to be anything crazy. It could be a really good French onion soup.

So places I go to are gonna be places that I believe may be able to help me forward my own concepts. So that’s one way of going to eat out. Another way is to go and eat something I don’t let into my cuisine, which is Asian influence. So I’ll go and have Vietnamese noodles and sushi. Places I go to learn something and get that experience [are] Church and State, Comme Ca, Animal, Grace and BLD. I have an affinity for [those chefs] combination’s and artistry of what they are trying to do on their menu.

Eli Sussman is one half of the Freshman in the Kitchen duo. LAist spoke with him in April 2009 about his own cooking adventures and philosophy. Ford’s Filling Station is at 9531 Culver Boulevard in Culver City.