Although definitely not in Baristaville, the opening of A Better World Cafe makes New Jersey the 5th state to host a “Robin Hood”-model restaurant, which allows patrons to pay according to their abilities. Located in a church in Highland Park, the cafe hopes to bring healthy food to all who need it, eschews the use of plastic and Styrofoam utensils, limits food waste by allowing patrons to select their own portion sizes, composts food waste, and only purchases seasonal ingredients from local farms within 50 miles of the kitchen.
The cafe offers one free community dish a day to anyone who needs it. Bigger meals come with a suggested donation, and those who can pay more help subsidize those who can’t. Visitors unable to pay can donate an hour of their time of for a meal.
The fare is simple, with mostly sandwiches and salads, and the menu looks tempting, with a complimentary pumpkin and chickpea curry, butternut squash soup with horseradish cream, and homemade breads and seasonal desserts. There’s even a Twitter feed with alerts about new menu additions.
The cafe is a partnership between Elijah’s Promise, a local soup kitchen/culinary school, and Who Is My Neighbor, Inc?, a local community service agency. The model is based on a cafe pioneered by Denise Cerreta, founder of One World Everybody Eats in Salt Lake City, and other “Robin Hood” cafes are located in Spokane, WA; Denver, CO; and Arlington, TX.
I was tempted to check it out for lunch until I realized how far away Highland Park is; I guess it’ll have to wait. In the meantime, what Baristaville restaurant do you wish would let you pay what you wanted?
You lost me at “Although definitely not in Baristaville…”
Which incidentally should be “Though definitely not in Baristaville…”, no? Can we have a vote of hands here? Who think Joyce’s use of “although” here is all right?
To my ears it goes plink. Seems to me it should either be “Although this establishment is not in Baristaville…” or “Though not in Baristaville…”
Although I may be in the minority on this.
Both “though” and “although” many be used as conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence. You may not use although at the end of a sentence, though.
And, by the way, to quote Woody Allen, “I’ll have the mashed yeast.”
I think although and though are interchangeable but it’s recommended that one begin a sentence with although. It still doesn’t sound right to me, though. Maybe there is not enough of a contrast between the two clauses.
Perhaps this is better: Although this restaurant is not in Baristaville, we still think it is worth writing about.
But in that case, I think “despite” is better.
Good Lord, have I joined the ranks of ROC and company in picking apart the grammar on this site? NOOOOOOO!
(ALTHOUGH petty and a bit mean-spirited, it is rather fun.)
I think she could have used the “although” without the “definitely.”
Saw this in the Ledger. I like the idea in concept but I just can’t help but think that someone undeserving is going to take advantage of it.
Despite the fact that my source books confirm that “although” and “though” may be used interchangably as consessive conjunctions (that sounds like an eye disease), “though” is considered more informal, as would be “tho” for you tweeters. “Since,” or “while” have different meanings and should be avoided as synonyms for “despite the fact that.”
And I think I saw something about this restaurant last evening on the Channel 7 early news. I am going to try the concept the next time we go to The Manor. (Don’t worry, I know how to wash dishes.)
I prefer although at the beginning of a sentence.
I agree with MM that underserving folks may take advantage of this restaurant. I wonder, though (AAH..there’s where though should go), if the restaurant will be open on Thanksgiving so those who may not have had a Thanksgiving meal might partake of one.
I guess my favorite restaurant is Leone’s, so if it were to adopt this concept, it would be fine with me, although I really don’t mind paying.
I don’t mind paying for great food and terrific service.
Although I’m with you all on the choice of words…
Let’s focus on the story here – for just a second…
What a great idea. I hope it works and that these organizations/restaurants etc. can be supported enough to thrive. And though some of us may not need to trade our services for food (be thankful!) we should make an effort, other than a grammatical one, for the benefit of our fellow human beings.
Can we talk about the exploitation? So someone who can’t pay has to work an hour for (I looked at the menu) a roast beet and goat cheese sandwich. Such a sandwich probably costs the restaurant $4. And for this they get an hour of labor without benefits?
…he’ll have the humble pie.
Owing to my considerable munificence, I hereby announce that in order to make the world a better place and be my brothers’ keeper I am instituting the “ROC Forest” system of landscaping. Anyone needing food is to report to my yard. In exchange for one hour’s work, trimming, mowing, weeding and raking, I’ll provide a beet sandwich with all the trimmings. I think we’ve ignored the plight of our fellow man long enough!
Accolades and Noble Peace Prizes can be sent care of Baristanet LLC.
Thank you.
An hour of labor for a “free” lunch is way better than having a free hour and going hungry.
I’m guessing (and hoping) you’ve never had the misfortune of chosing between rent and food.
It’s not a fun choice to make.
“Bigger meals come with a suggested donation, and those who can pay more help subsidize those who can’t.”
Kinda sounds like the Obama health care reform plan.
And comparing an hour of washing dishes and busing tables to an hour of landscaping is really comparing apples to oranges (or beets to tomatoes if you prefer).
I am in total agreement with you Generic. I’ve got loads of yard work too, and the Missus is boiling beets as we speak!
Enough with the Robin Hood comparisons!
The real Nottingham in the UK is where the great novelist Alan Sillitoe comes from, and where the movie version of his first novel, “Saturday Night And Sunday Morning,” was filmed. It’s a grotty, depressing sort of place, Newark without the Spanish-Portugese restaurants and the facade of corporate optimism you find in NJ, but with drainage canals and much better places to drink.
And what remains of nearby Sherwood Forest is a few forlorn acres of scraggly trees; you’d probably find denser forestation on Michael Strahan’s old homestead. Besides, Robin Hood according to the ballads usually dined on the King’s venison, would likely have scorned a pumpkin and chickpea curry.
Again, when last week’s incidents at Montclair High call out for some explication, this is all the Baristas can offer, copping heavily from the wheezes of the dying-as-we-post Star-Ledger?
“And comparing an hour of washing dishes and busing tables to an hour of landscaping is really comparing apples to oranges (or beets to tomatoes if you prefer).”
Already they’re unionizing!
Ok, ok, I’ll throw in some quinoa and a cup of water (without ice).
“Besides, Robin Hood according to the ballads usually dined on the King’s venison, would likely have scorned a pumpkin and chickpea curry.”
Well, there’s plenty of “venison” in Essex County to go around.
there’s plenty of “venison” in Essex County to go around.>/I>
Bingo! I think Mrs. M. has hit upon a solution. GNM can carry the ammo.
I’ve always wondered about the people who collect money for the homeless in NYC — you know, the ones on the sidewalks with the big plastic jars. I realize that unemployment is high these days, so perhaps it makes sense, but even during the go-go years, when the economy was booming, you saw these people soliciting donations. Wouldn’t have been more lucrative back then to get a job–say, busing tables or shoveling ROC’s dirt– and donate the proceeds? What are the economics of panhandling–does it pay competitively?
Kaity and the toothless mutt did pretty well.
Front-page story in The Post today about the “jugheads.” It’s a scam. One of the founders used some of the funds to pay for his Weight Watchers program.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/suit_put_cork_in_it_jugheads_GvF3qaHCib8Xh5AY86i68O
Hound. Toothless hound.
That’s different. They used the Internet.
The UHO is a scam? I’m shocked! Next you’ll be telling me leading Global Warming alarmists were faking data and smothering criticism.
no such thing as baristavile you have been working at starbucks too long.
ROC, beets are much better when roasted. Especially the golden variety.
JG,
I agree, wrapped in foil and roasted, so much better….
MMMMMMMMM Beets!!!!!!!!
Next you’ll be telling me leading Global Warming alarmists were faking data and smothering criticism.
Yep. All a hoax, as evidenced by stolen, out-of-context emails. The facts have nothing to do with it.
Agreed about the golden…taste better and they don’t make a bloody mess, literally.
Why does this misinformation about global warming being a hoax persist? How can intelligent people not see the facts staring them in the face? This fall, scientists have measured a 33 percent increase in the number of leaves on the ground over last fall, due to the stimulating effect of atmospheric carbon on trees. If your lawn yielded 60 bags last year, it will yield 80 this year. If current trends continue, in tens years it will take 1100 bags for the typical lawn. Something must be done, before we are buried alive in organic matter.
Almost every reference to Robin Hood gets it wrong. Show of hands; how many have actually read the story?
If you had, you would understand how the sheriff got to be “the rich.” Viewed in this light, Robin Hood begins to look more like a hero better matched to what we today call conservatives.
Yes Mike91, context is everything when you’re a scientist and you are erasing and destroying data required in a “freedom of information” mandate rather than release it to a “skeptic”.
Why the scientific notion that no one misunderstand your data alone merits its destruction alone.
Why the scientific notion that no one misunderstand your data alone merits its destruction alone.
ROC, I’m agreeing with you. Nothing that can possibly be observed and recorded can withstand the power of out-of-contextemails! That shrinking ice pack up in Greenland? Obviously false. Its all a hoax.
It might or might not be a hoax. But perhaps before we destroy out economy we might want a little more rigor. You know like actual peer review not manipulated by one side or the other, and maybe data not deleted when it might be “misused” by skeptics.
Look if these emails were from the other side or from the oil industry the eco-lawyers would be running out of their houses, briefs and subpoenas in hand with one pant leg on…
ROC, if George Bush recognized global warming more than a year ago, what’s taking you so long? Waiting on Dick Cheney’s opinion?
its going to get very interesting Spiro.
The best “out of context” line from the emails so far?
“We need to show some left [over money] to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”
its going to get very interesting Spiro.
No, I don’t think so. The tone of the most damning emails I’ve seen only point out how settled the science is. People who deny the existence of man-made global warming are considered ‘idiots’ by these scientists because they know the data.
Of course, ROC has completely missed my point that whatever these scientists are saying in emails (or snippets of emails, actually), what’s really happening to our environment is verifiable through other sources. While this was certainly an influencial group of scientists, it wasn’t the entire ‘climate scientist’ community.
what’s really happening to our environment is verifiable through other sources
It’s one thing to note a meaningful warming trend, but it’s altogether another to conclude that it is without-a-doubt anthropogenic.
Furthermore, the idea that warmer is necessarily worse is not fully supported. For every submerged coastal zone you will find suddenly temperate and fertile Northern climes. The Sahel is mysteriously greener and environmentally healthier during this time of warming. Go figure.
“Furthermore, the idea that warmer is necessarily worse is not fully supported.”
This reminds me of something Steven Milloy, a paragon of objectivity, would write.
But, I’ll go with it–why not? Just think, if our region’s hardiness zone increased from a 6 to a 7, we could greatly increase our local perennial species!