This is the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I. There has been an ongoing fascination with this war, how it was caused, whether it could have been avoided, and the trappings of the war itself. As one contributor to the U. S. Militaria Forum writes:
On one hand you have mounted troops, horse drawn artillery, lancers and communications by pigeon and signal flag. On the other you have the intoduction of machine guns, aircraft, chemical warfare, and tanks.
Also, I think the uniforms, especially the wool ones with bullion SSI’s are really compelling and artistic in their own way.
Not to mention small, unartistic details like the sixteen million or so deaths from that war.
Some still ask, “How could people do this to each other?” as if there were not thousands of years of human behavior serving as precedent, as if borders on a map have ever been able to contain or restrain human conflict. Was Hobbes (1660) so wrong about our nature?
From [man’s] equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.
The map at the top of this post is called The Global Conflict Tracker, and is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign-policy think-tank founded at the close of World War I. I counted thirty-four wars and conflicts on this map — and those are only the ones listed as “conflict prevention priorities” by CFR’s Center for Preventive Action.
The Center for Preventive Action says its mission is “to help prevent, defuse, or resolve deadly conflicts around the world and to expand the body of knowledge on conflict prevention.” I wonder, looking at the map and considering human history, how many conflicts this think-tank thinks it is going to prevent.
As it turns out, we would have been better off re-gifting the gift card to our local public radio station. Ruth’s Chris does not publish its prices online, for a reason. To start with, our martinis turned out to be $13.50 and $14.50 each. This is Asheville, North Carolina, not New York City. I don’t care how good the martinis are (and they were good), I object when a restaurant has a 6x or 7x markup on its drinks.
Our seating was nice but not the most romantic we ever had — we had a good view of the dining room, that’s all. Our service was good but not the best we ever had — our server was well-trained in the quiet, serious pretentiousness that one-percenters must expect.
Our dinners were good but not the most memorable we ever had — my medium-rare steak was rather cool and rare, and the au poivre sauce on the side ($4 extra) had so much dill and/or rosemary you would never know there were peppercorns somewhere in there.
What was memorable was our tab — among the highest we ever had. I thought dinners in Paris were expensive but Ruth’s Chris brings that “we’ve been gouged” feeling back home. After your $14 martini, you can enjoy a steak without sides for $45, a dish of spinach for $9, and a few tablespoons of a mediocre sauce for $4 that any decent restaurant would include in the cost of your dinner. Sorry.
Like most other upscale steakhouses — Mortons, Smith & Wollensky, Palm, Capital Grille, to name a few — Ruth’s Chris is just another shakedown. I don’t understand the concept, or who they intend to appeal to — business people on price-be-damned expense accounts, hoping to impress clients?
Some people enjoy this restaurant — you can find them on TripAdvisor. But I would have preferred dining at one of our favorite, more reasonably-priced, locally-owned restaurants, like Corner Kitchen or Bouchon, and will do so from now on — gift cards be damned.