the philosophy of the hamburger

Three questions which come up regarding the burger.
1. what makes a hamburger a hamburger? The hamburger, or the bun? (or some combination thereof)
2. does the addition of condiments make a hamburger better?
3. does the consumption of a better burger make one a better person?

To the first, the answer is clearly the meat. The bun itself does not matter. It can be of weck, of whole wheat, even of wonderbreadesque consistency, where it feels as though one is biting into the foam used in upholstery. Even two slices of bread, if one is desperate and/or holding to a tradition can a bun make.
It is the meat, for the meat is called hamburger. The buns within which the meat is contained are called hamburger buns: buns for hamburger. The shape and rough geometry of the meat is a patty[1], which when made of hamburger becomes a hamburger patty: a patty-shape constructed of hamburger.

The bun (or acceptable bun substitute, as noted above) and the shape of the patty are necessary identifying features of the hamburger, but the meat is what truly defines it. The patty of ground ribeye steak is a steakburger, the patty of turkey is a turkey burger, and the patty of ground vegetables, beans and soy held together by processes unknown is an abomination.

The ground beef is hamburger, and the assembly of that hamburger between the bun, with or without condiments is a hamburger.[2] A, as in one of many, as in that which points to the general idea of a hamburger.

So too, must we realize that the meat will make or break the hamburger. A good burger is at least 15% fat pre-cooking. To say otherwise is gustatory heresy of the most unforgivable nature. The rendered fat from a good burger will make even the most dry and cardboardlike buns into something acceptable. One can not say the reverse is true. A perfect bun cannot overcome a dry, flavorless patty.[3]

This assumes that a hamburger patty and bun does a hamburger make. Though this fulfills the basic requirements of being a hamburger, one is remiss in their duty if they do not consider adding condiments to said burger. Condiments can make a decent burger better by adding texture, substance, flavor, contrast in flavor and/or moisture. We would say that these help the burger achieve a certain arete, but that arete can be separated. A hamburger may be comparable to a cheeseburger, but the cheeseburgers are best compared amongst themselves.[4] A condiment may make a burger better, but it also slightly shifts the criteria on which its excellence is judged.

It should be mentioned that certain condiments may be added to a burger, and will necessarily make it worse. Any dijon mustard[5], any cheese which may properly be summed up as 'fancy-schmancy', any Kobe beef, any inferior quality tomato, lettuce or onion will all make a worse burger. Some of this is by lowering the overall quality of the meal, some by bastardizing and hybridizing what is at heart a simple food meant to be enjoyed by all. Similarly, there are certain properties which make a burger better, such as if one orders that burger at In-n-Out where all food is served with a side of angelic choir.

A burger is meant to be enjoyed by all, but individual tastes make discussion of a 'better burger' difficult. All things being equal, we can say the following: if you can recognize a difference between burgers, and prefer one to another, choose the burger you prefer more.[6] The better person is one who does not do the bare minimum. If you can do more, do it. If you can eat food which gives you more pleasure to eat it, eat it. Especially if it's at In-N-Out

---------------------
1. The existence of the White Castle slider shape (which is square rather than mostly circular) is not a weakness of this theory: we differentiate between the slider and the hamburger just as we differentiate between the candy bar and the 'fun size' candy bar. One is not to be mistaken for the other, though identical in content.
2. though for burgers of true greatness, 'the hamburger' may be the appropriate nomenclature.
3. This is related to the origin of the bun and all sandwiches in general. The bread was meant to transfer the sandwich contents to the mouth, while ensuring that the hands remained clean enough to continue playing cards. Though necessary, the bun is merely a vessel for the contents of the sandwich.
4. Adding further subcategories for things such as 'cheeseburgers with lettuce and tomato' increases the accuracy of the comparison but decreases the usefulness of the comparison. We must generalize to a certain degree, for the category of 'burgers with romaine lettuce, vidalia onions and grass-fed beef made on a certain grill by a certain chef on days in which he was in a good mood' is not useful to many people.
5. the President's favorite! Spicy brown mustard might have been acceptable, but who are we to judge?
6. If the 'better burger' costs significantly more, and you are not willing to pay that amount for superior quality because its 'not worth it', that's an acceptable reason.

rebuttal: or who is wrong today?

Here's the full text from a July 31st letter to the editor in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. (AKA, the one with the more conservative readers)

"Again, with dismay, I read about another government program designed to waste more of the taxpayers' money ("Pols give 'clunker' new meaning," July 21).
This program is called the Car Allowance Rebate System. CARS will pay individuals from $3,000 to $5,000 to turn in their old gas-guzzling, air-polluting junkers that are at least 8 years old and get less than 18 mpg.
With the money, the person must purchase a new car that gets at least 24 mpg. Cost of the program is a mere $4 billion to $6 billion.
However, it hasn't been figured out where the money will come from. I think most of us could get that answer in one guess.
The premise of the program is bad enough. But the real kicker is that I'm seeing ads for this program sponsored by none other than dealers for Nissan, Toyota and other imports.
Did not our leaders just spend billions upon billions to bail out U.S. carmakers? I would think that the writers of this bill would have been smart enough to give our country a little leg up and only offer the program on American-made autos.
Bruce H. Bentson, Inver Grove Heights"

The premise is twofold: stimulate consumers to buy new cars, and attempt to reduce dependence for oil. Indelicate? Sure. recycling used cars that are perfectly good is wasteful, but better that congress made it an option to trade in certain cars and had some waste, instead of mandating that having those cars would be illegal.
But lets face some facts: The truly fuel inefficient 1970s cars are a teensy portion of all cars out there. taking the cars that are both more prevalent AND not very fuel efficient gets more cars off the road, and does a greater job of reducing the total amount of fuel needed.
Fuel is one of those things with inelastic demand. so if demand goes down, you're not going to see the wild price inflations that you saw in summer of 2008. So it costs $6 billion dollars to the US taxpayers. that's $20 per person. I think that the gas savings alone would account for that.

Issue two is the "fact" that foreign automakers have been taking advantage of this.
Well, the carmakers who have had the better small cars have tended to be foreign-owned. That's not really their fault for doing their job well.
But let's look at where the most purchased cars under the CARS system are made. For the record, this is taken from Jalopnik.
1. Ford Focus (ooh. that's gotta hurt when the #1 purchased car is American. Sorry Bruce. Anyways, its made in Wayne, Michigan.)
2. Honda Civic (built in Ohio and Indiana)
3. Toyota Corolla (many built in Ontario, but there is a plant in California)
4. Toyota Prius (made in Japan)
5. Ford Escape (made in Missouri)
6. Toyota camry (made in Kentucky)
7. Dodge Caliber (made in Illinois)
8. Hyundai Elantra (made in Korea)
9. Honda Fit (made in Japan)
10. Chevy Cobalt (made in Ohio)

So 4 out of 10 are made abroad. Okay, technically three are, because there IS a corolla plant in the US. More importantly, 6 of the top 7 are made here in the US.
As they say, PWND.

random thought of the week

'storage' is a concept that doesn't really work well in nature. If I have too many books, I can save space and store them on a bookshelf. if there are too many rabbits, nature can save space by putting them in a wolf. But trust me, you are not getting those rabbits back. That is one way storage.