Thank you, Josh Ozersky

This guy tends to be right about a lot of things, but his piece in this week's Time Magazine on the Michelin Guide is like a 95 Thesis for the food criticism industry.  "It's just another crappily written restaurant guide, not even as discerning as the insert from the Dallas Morning News," he writes (burn!), and, if you've ever read it yourself, you'd have to agree.  While I personally have beef with the Guide's restaurant choices (Brooklyn Fare gets two stars, Babbo gets no stars, I get one big confused look on my face), Ozersky smartly focuses on the quality of the writing in the Guide instead, noting its... utter lack of quality.  A piece in the New Yorker somewhat timidly hinted at this a while back, but Ozersky goes further in blasting the Guide for its vagueness: one-star Eleven Madison Park has "breathtaking food" and a "soft, butter-poached" lobster; two-star Corton has "irresistible food" and a "perfectly poached" lobster.  What makes one better than the other?  What, specifically, about the food at Corton is irresistible?   Could they possibly use any more nondescript, cliched food criticism adjectives?

Michelin Guide, consider yourself served.