Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
And join us in the fifth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we'll learn about the first victim of the law.
The first known offender of the foie gras ban has been reported. His warning letter will be in the mail eventually.
The offense was anonymously reported on Friday night as someone called the 311 non-emergency system and complained that foie gras was being served at Block 44, a Lincoln Square restaurant. The chef, Rick Spiros, acknowledged that he had indeed served about 8 orders of foie gras that night - even though he knew that the ban was in place and it was illegal to do so. his reasoning was that he wasn't trying to be one of the uprising restaurants or anything, he was simply trying to avoid wasting the very expensive food. And the very BEST way to do that - is to sell it to hungry restaurant patrons.
Says Rick Spiros, "I had a couple pieces left over, and I just got rid of it. I just did it. I'm a bad chef, I guess. People loved it. People bought it. One person complained? I'll take the slap on the wrist. I'm not in fourth grade. I had the decision to make, and I served it."
He claims this was a one-time thing and now that his foie gras has been sold and enjoyably eaten, he doesn't plan on buying anymore and continuing to violate the new law. Even so, he certainly doesn't SUPPORT the law. "There are so many other things to worry about...there's graffiti on my door, no one cares about that. We all live here." He also added that "It's ridiculous. There's far too many things going on in this town to worry about a duck liver. I don't know what the person's problem was in the first place with the whole thing, but I do know black and white. There are things far more important to be dealing with in the city, the Health Department and in the restaurant business. Foie gras is the lowest on the totem pole."
Tim Hadac, who you all remember from the other parts of this series is a spokesman for the City Health Department, said that this complaint means that they will be sending a letter to Block 44 to remind them of the law and let them know they expect compliance with it. "If we get a second complaint, we'll be out there, ticket book in hand. If we find a violation if and when we inspect, we'll write 'em a ticket for $250," he said.
Yea. We'll be waiting. We're certainly shaking in our hypothetical boots as it is.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate.
Read more!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
College is Killing the Birth Rate; Grade 13?
Chicago mayor Daley says that college is pretty much ruining the birth rate here in America. It's causing fewer babies to be born, and threatens to stagnate both knowledge and knowledge-based economy. And while the mayor starts making accusations and offering "plans", it will wind up in the lap of whoever wins the race for governor. Education funding will be a hot issue for both candidates, especially with some of the ideas that mayor Daley is throwing around.
For example, a "Grade 13" - a fifth year of high school.
While his accusations of what college are doing to America make some sense, his plans/ideas may not hold as much water. College tuitions are indeed costly, and can range anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 to probably much higher than that if it's a private school. And while scholarships and financial aid can help, their help is limited and the brunt of the expense winds up on both the student and the family as a whole.
It's basically coming down to a family unit deciding to stop at a certain number of children simply out of the fear of what college expenses will be. And mayor Daley doesn't want parents to stop having children for that reason, especially when it means that children simply can't afford higher education at all.
Daley adds, "If we’re a land of opportunity and we want to be a knowledge-based society and we want to compete against India and China, we had better educate our children." The fact is that the senior year of high school is spent more on trying to find a college and find ways to PAY for that college than really learning the material needed to get INTO the college. The added stress really gums up the works as well.
So maybe this fifth year of high school isn't such a bad idea.
After all, it would mean that 4th-year students can do the work they're supposed to be doing. And by the 4th year of high school, many students are taking classes that will either give them credits for college or AP exams that do the same. Imagine if there were a fifth year to get MORE of those credits so your stay in college would be shortened all that much, plus have an easier college-like schedule to provide the free time needed to apply and work out financial situations as well. Daley thinks that all children should have the opportunity to go to college, learn the knowledge and skills one can reap there, and keep America on top of that knowledge-based economy.
As for me, I'm not sure if all high school students really SHOULD go to college. Of course, this is mostly based on my theory that we can work on getting rid of illegal immigrants and open the work force up to provide jobs to the many who can't afford or survive college. That could ease up on the unemployment rate and maybe then employers wouldn't need to make all of the good jobs so competitive and requiring college degrees to make sure they're picking the "cream of the crop" who DID afford and survive college.
I've encountered way too many low-budget low-quality jobs that you simply need to be totally overqualified to handle. Employers apparently think that anything involving a computer should require a degree (often in a field that has nothing to do with computers). Welcome to the year 2000, folks. We know computers. We've hit a generation where high school diplomas mean a LOT more skills than were previously available to non-collegiate applicants, you know?
Or maybe those diplomas will mean that much more with an extra year of high-school knowledge crammed into the brains of our youths? What do you think about Grade 13 and mayor Daley's accusations of college killing the birth rate?
The original article Read more!
For example, a "Grade 13" - a fifth year of high school.
While his accusations of what college are doing to America make some sense, his plans/ideas may not hold as much water. College tuitions are indeed costly, and can range anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 to probably much higher than that if it's a private school. And while scholarships and financial aid can help, their help is limited and the brunt of the expense winds up on both the student and the family as a whole.
It's basically coming down to a family unit deciding to stop at a certain number of children simply out of the fear of what college expenses will be. And mayor Daley doesn't want parents to stop having children for that reason, especially when it means that children simply can't afford higher education at all.
Daley adds, "If we’re a land of opportunity and we want to be a knowledge-based society and we want to compete against India and China, we had better educate our children." The fact is that the senior year of high school is spent more on trying to find a college and find ways to PAY for that college than really learning the material needed to get INTO the college. The added stress really gums up the works as well.
So maybe this fifth year of high school isn't such a bad idea.
After all, it would mean that 4th-year students can do the work they're supposed to be doing. And by the 4th year of high school, many students are taking classes that will either give them credits for college or AP exams that do the same. Imagine if there were a fifth year to get MORE of those credits so your stay in college would be shortened all that much, plus have an easier college-like schedule to provide the free time needed to apply and work out financial situations as well. Daley thinks that all children should have the opportunity to go to college, learn the knowledge and skills one can reap there, and keep America on top of that knowledge-based economy.
As for me, I'm not sure if all high school students really SHOULD go to college. Of course, this is mostly based on my theory that we can work on getting rid of illegal immigrants and open the work force up to provide jobs to the many who can't afford or survive college. That could ease up on the unemployment rate and maybe then employers wouldn't need to make all of the good jobs so competitive and requiring college degrees to make sure they're picking the "cream of the crop" who DID afford and survive college.
I've encountered way too many low-budget low-quality jobs that you simply need to be totally overqualified to handle. Employers apparently think that anything involving a computer should require a degree (often in a field that has nothing to do with computers). Welcome to the year 2000, folks. We know computers. We've hit a generation where high school diplomas mean a LOT more skills than were previously available to non-collegiate applicants, you know?
Or maybe those diplomas will mean that much more with an extra year of high-school knowledge crammed into the brains of our youths? What do you think about Grade 13 and mayor Daley's accusations of college killing the birth rate?
The original article Read more!
Illegal Immigrants: RIGHT OVER THERE!
It's official: illegal immigrants simply have more rights than regular US citizens. And I'll tell you why: BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL. They are, by definition, breaking the law by being in this country without legal citizenship, documentation, et cetera. And with this rise of town ordinances that LOOK like they'll finally be making a difference by banning/punishing those who HIRE or RENT LIVING SPACE to illegal immigrants - it's just becoming more and more clear that while the CITIZENS care, the POLICE don't.
Because in all the photos of the protests, the police are in view to "keep the peace", but the law-breakers are RIGHT OVER THERE!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say that the solidarity isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for another group of law-breakers. Let's say the "Car Stereo Stealing Coalition" was having a march, trying to protest a law increasing the penalty for stealing car stereos. Which means there's about 300 people who have STOLEN CAR STEREOS and are practically CONFESSING to the crime. And the police are there to make sure nobody HURTS the thieves while they march, holding high their stolen car stereos to prove they are members of the CSSC.
How about the "Cuban Cigar Connoseurs"? Marching in a puff of smoke from illegally-purchased cigars down the street, possibly wearing Castro beards. Blowing their illegal smoke right in a police officer's face. Possibly asking them for a light! Just please don't let those other protestors throw water on my beautiful Cubano, eh?
This law makes sense, if you think about it a LITTLE. Okay, rent to a family of illegal immigrants, and you get penalized. Try thinking about it harder, because there's nothing about DEPORTING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS there. If you're illegal, your landlord gets slapped and punished, and your biggest worry is trying to find ANOTHER PLACE to rent and get THAT landlord punished. And the same thing with the jobs. Imagine if your boss of ten employees hires one illegal. And then your BOSS gets arrested. Sure, the illegal has to leave, but don't you think YOUR job is in danger with your boss in prison or something?
And if you're one of those bleeding-heart liberals who's all "why you being so mean to the poor illegals?" then I have another analogy for you. It's not that great, but maybe it'll shed some light on the animosity that the issue creates:
You're back in the third grade. And you're in line to get some yummy cookies. And you've finally made it after minutes of waiting to the next 10 kids to get cookies. And some mean kid in front of you lets 5 of his friends get "cuts". It not only delays YOUR cookie enjoyment, but THEY get to enjoy cookies BEFORE you and WITHOUT waiting all those precious snacktime minutes that YOU waited. And you complain to the teacher, who just tells you "you're still going to get cookies, so please stop the complaining".
Well instead of cookies, maybe it's healthcare. Or a job.
And instead of minutes, it's hours or even days or longer.
And instead of a teacher, it's the police.
Who does NOTHING about the "cutting". Except tells YOU to stop arguing about it, while not punishing the offenders.
Welcome to our world, liberals.
Maybe there's not enough cookies, like JOBS, and they get them but you don't, because their "cut" in line was because they'll work for less than you.
What we need in this country are police officers and the Department of Immigration to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING about the problem. Building a wall along Mexico is great for keeping them out, but we have to acknowledge the vast number who are already here. In Riverside, NJ where this protest happened, the town has 8,000 and it's estimated that 3,500 of them are illegal immigrants.
And if 200-500 of them get together and protest, how about getting the fucking Department of Immigration over there and deporting some of the fucking illegals??
Don't like our ordinance that chastises you for breaking the law and entering our country illegally?
Fine.
Get the hell out and the law won't bother you anymore.
The article about the protest
Read more!
Because in all the photos of the protests, the police are in view to "keep the peace", but the law-breakers are RIGHT OVER THERE!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say that the solidarity isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for another group of law-breakers. Let's say the "Car Stereo Stealing Coalition" was having a march, trying to protest a law increasing the penalty for stealing car stereos. Which means there's about 300 people who have STOLEN CAR STEREOS and are practically CONFESSING to the crime. And the police are there to make sure nobody HURTS the thieves while they march, holding high their stolen car stereos to prove they are members of the CSSC.
How about the "Cuban Cigar Connoseurs"? Marching in a puff of smoke from illegally-purchased cigars down the street, possibly wearing Castro beards. Blowing their illegal smoke right in a police officer's face. Possibly asking them for a light! Just please don't let those other protestors throw water on my beautiful Cubano, eh?
This law makes sense, if you think about it a LITTLE. Okay, rent to a family of illegal immigrants, and you get penalized. Try thinking about it harder, because there's nothing about DEPORTING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS there. If you're illegal, your landlord gets slapped and punished, and your biggest worry is trying to find ANOTHER PLACE to rent and get THAT landlord punished. And the same thing with the jobs. Imagine if your boss of ten employees hires one illegal. And then your BOSS gets arrested. Sure, the illegal has to leave, but don't you think YOUR job is in danger with your boss in prison or something?
And if you're one of those bleeding-heart liberals who's all "why you being so mean to the poor illegals?" then I have another analogy for you. It's not that great, but maybe it'll shed some light on the animosity that the issue creates:
You're back in the third grade. And you're in line to get some yummy cookies. And you've finally made it after minutes of waiting to the next 10 kids to get cookies. And some mean kid in front of you lets 5 of his friends get "cuts". It not only delays YOUR cookie enjoyment, but THEY get to enjoy cookies BEFORE you and WITHOUT waiting all those precious snacktime minutes that YOU waited. And you complain to the teacher, who just tells you "you're still going to get cookies, so please stop the complaining".
Well instead of cookies, maybe it's healthcare. Or a job.
And instead of minutes, it's hours or even days or longer.
And instead of a teacher, it's the police.
Who does NOTHING about the "cutting". Except tells YOU to stop arguing about it, while not punishing the offenders.
Welcome to our world, liberals.
Maybe there's not enough cookies, like JOBS, and they get them but you don't, because their "cut" in line was because they'll work for less than you.
What we need in this country are police officers and the Department of Immigration to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING about the problem. Building a wall along Mexico is great for keeping them out, but we have to acknowledge the vast number who are already here. In Riverside, NJ where this protest happened, the town has 8,000 and it's estimated that 3,500 of them are illegal immigrants.
And if 200-500 of them get together and protest, how about getting the fucking Department of Immigration over there and deporting some of the fucking illegals??
Don't like our ordinance that chastises you for breaking the law and entering our country illegally?
Fine.
Get the hell out and the law won't bother you anymore.
The article about the protest
Read more!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
And join us in the fourth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. This fourth installment is about the first day of the ban, and what the IRA is doing to fight it.
Because foie gras hasn't gone away - it's being served in more places than EVER!
In a form of civil disobedience straight out of the heart of America, Chicago restaurants are creating an uprising against the city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras by selling it EVERYWHERE! (Oh, when I say "heart of America", I mean making a point AND turning a profit.) Acting out against the unfair banning of a food item that the federal government has no problem with grading, testing and selling all across the country. There are a few other cities that have passed such an ordinance about the non-vegetarian delicacy, but Chicago is the first one to be hit by it, and Chicagoans and their restaurant owners are more than willing to hit back.
The famous Harry Caray's has never before sold foie gras in its restaurant. But to spite this ban that took effect yesterday, the owners were proud to add a few new items to the menu: a pan-seared foie gras and scallops appetizer ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95). Why would a restaurant that was not previously in violation of the ordinance decide to add these violation-items on the day the ordinance takes effect?
Says owner Grant DePorter, "This ban is embarrassing Chicago. We really don't think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What's next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?"
So with all of these restaurants not subtly but BLATANTLY defying the unfair city ordinance AND profiting from it, what is the city going to do to them?
So far - nothing.
Tim Hadac, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health that should be enforcing this ban, said that although the law went into effect yesterday, on Tuesday the 22nd, the city would start enforcing it today. He went on to later say what the enforcement WOULD be, and the answer is practically "very little". City officials will respond to citizen complaints, said Hadac, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine - from $250 to $500 - for second offenses. Joe Moore, the guy who proposed the unconstitutional ban in the first place, added that "The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens."
Yes. We certainly will. And I'll keep on posting about it to try and raise awareness of this unjust law that you and PETA brought into this city like a pestilence until things have been made right again. And frankly, going back to my orignal comment at the start of this article about the "heart of America" - at the prices that Harry Caray's is selling the foie gras dishes alone, don't you think it's laughable to have the SECOND slap (after all the time it takes to mail letters nowadays) fine be $250-$500? I can just see DePorter saying "Uh-oh, another $500 fine! Let's sell 20 more foie gras entrees, turn a profit, and STICK IT TO 'EM!" and possibly adding a Harry Caray tribute of "HOLY COW!"
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
And join us in the fourth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. This fourth installment is about the first day of the ban, and what the IRA is doing to fight it.
Because foie gras hasn't gone away - it's being served in more places than EVER!
In a form of civil disobedience straight out of the heart of America, Chicago restaurants are creating an uprising against the city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras by selling it EVERYWHERE! (Oh, when I say "heart of America", I mean making a point AND turning a profit.) Acting out against the unfair banning of a food item that the federal government has no problem with grading, testing and selling all across the country. There are a few other cities that have passed such an ordinance about the non-vegetarian delicacy, but Chicago is the first one to be hit by it, and Chicagoans and their restaurant owners are more than willing to hit back.
The famous Harry Caray's has never before sold foie gras in its restaurant. But to spite this ban that took effect yesterday, the owners were proud to add a few new items to the menu: a pan-seared foie gras and scallops appetizer ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95). Why would a restaurant that was not previously in violation of the ordinance decide to add these violation-items on the day the ordinance takes effect?
Says owner Grant DePorter, "This ban is embarrassing Chicago. We really don't think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What's next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?"
So with all of these restaurants not subtly but BLATANTLY defying the unfair city ordinance AND profiting from it, what is the city going to do to them?
So far - nothing.
Tim Hadac, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health that should be enforcing this ban, said that although the law went into effect yesterday, on Tuesday the 22nd, the city would start enforcing it today. He went on to later say what the enforcement WOULD be, and the answer is practically "very little". City officials will respond to citizen complaints, said Hadac, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine - from $250 to $500 - for second offenses. Joe Moore, the guy who proposed the unconstitutional ban in the first place, added that "The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens."
Yes. We certainly will. And I'll keep on posting about it to try and raise awareness of this unjust law that you and PETA brought into this city like a pestilence until things have been made right again. And frankly, going back to my orignal comment at the start of this article about the "heart of America" - at the prices that Harry Caray's is selling the foie gras dishes alone, don't you think it's laughable to have the SECOND slap (after all the time it takes to mail letters nowadays) fine be $250-$500? I can just see DePorter saying "Uh-oh, another $500 fine! Let's sell 20 more foie gras entrees, turn a profit, and STICK IT TO 'EM!" and possibly adding a Harry Caray tribute of "HOLY COW!"
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
In the last installment of this debate, it sure as heck seemed like we were seeing the end of the story. If you read my post back then, Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame, you'd remember that PETA used some dirty underhanded tricks to scare the politicians into signing the bill that effectively bans the sale/production/consumption of foie gras in Chicago.
You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.
Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.
So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.
Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.
So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:
1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.
2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.
3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.
4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.
In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.
ENTER THE EVIDENCE
Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.
1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.
2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.
3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...
4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.
And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?
So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!
The defense rests, your honor.
Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?
This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?
You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!
You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.
Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.
So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.
Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.
So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:
1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.
2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.
3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.
4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.
In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.
ENTER THE EVIDENCE
Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.
1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.
2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.
3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...
4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.
And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?
So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!
The defense rests, your honor.
Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?
This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?
You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Baby Names: Asia Cracks Down on Horrible Parents
Technorati Profile
This is a special post, dedicated to all of the parents out there who give their children godawful names that will lead to ridicule and shame for the entirety of that poor child's life. A child is not a pet that should be given a cute and unique name that sounds humorous or inspiring (like "Humorous Smith" or "Inspiring Jones") - not that pets should be named thusly, either (see: How to Own a Pet (Part 1) for more info). In Asia, countries are finally setting forth on a mission to stop this aspect of horrible parenting once and for all - with quite an awesome method of doing so:
Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities.
Malaysia and China are two countries listed that have adopted the practice of banning names - adding them to lists that the National Registration Department will not allow to be given to children. While currently their lists are small, hopefully this sentiment can spread to America, where we exaggerate and overemphasize everything, and maybe finally put an end to OUR horrible parents and their victimized children.
Department spokesperson Jainisah Mohd Noor was quoted as saying the list was compiled following input from various religious and cultural groups. The names being banned in Malaysia include Zani (which means 'male adulterer') and Woti ('sexual intercourse'), in India we find Karrupan ('black fellow') as well as Sivappi and Vellayan (which denote 'fair skin') being banned, and banned in China are names like Chow Tow ('smelly head') and Sum Seng ('gangster').
The main list luckily goes farther than just racial slurs and inappropriate acts. The National Registration Department will also not allow parents to name their babies after colors, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables.
While in these countries, the NRD will allow parents usage of these names "if they are insistent even after knowing they are unsuitable", in the land of lawyers known as America, maybe we can start fines and/or jail time for offenders. The warning of a jail sentence might certainly open the eyes of bad parents and convince them to change their children's poor names on the spot as well as remind them to never again do such a foolish (and now illegal) thing.
And the first to be put on trial in America for such an offense?
Gwyneth Paltrow, for her now-illegally-named child, Apple.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060731/lf_afp/malaysianamesoffbeat_060730075808;_ylt=Ag.wq6dUokC.UDG1_U69ztis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
This is a special post, dedicated to all of the parents out there who give their children godawful names that will lead to ridicule and shame for the entirety of that poor child's life. A child is not a pet that should be given a cute and unique name that sounds humorous or inspiring (like "Humorous Smith" or "Inspiring Jones") - not that pets should be named thusly, either (see: How to Own a Pet (Part 1) for more info). In Asia, countries are finally setting forth on a mission to stop this aspect of horrible parenting once and for all - with quite an awesome method of doing so:
Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities.
Malaysia and China are two countries listed that have adopted the practice of banning names - adding them to lists that the National Registration Department will not allow to be given to children. While currently their lists are small, hopefully this sentiment can spread to America, where we exaggerate and overemphasize everything, and maybe finally put an end to OUR horrible parents and their victimized children.
Department spokesperson Jainisah Mohd Noor was quoted as saying the list was compiled following input from various religious and cultural groups. The names being banned in Malaysia include Zani (which means 'male adulterer') and Woti ('sexual intercourse'), in India we find Karrupan ('black fellow') as well as Sivappi and Vellayan (which denote 'fair skin') being banned, and banned in China are names like Chow Tow ('smelly head') and Sum Seng ('gangster').
The main list luckily goes farther than just racial slurs and inappropriate acts. The National Registration Department will also not allow parents to name their babies after colors, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables.
While in these countries, the NRD will allow parents usage of these names "if they are insistent even after knowing they are unsuitable", in the land of lawyers known as America, maybe we can start fines and/or jail time for offenders. The warning of a jail sentence might certainly open the eyes of bad parents and convince them to change their children's poor names on the spot as well as remind them to never again do such a foolish (and now illegal) thing.
And the first to be put on trial in America for such an offense?
Gwyneth Paltrow, for her now-illegally-named child, Apple.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060731/lf_afp/malaysianamesoffbeat_060730075808;_ylt=Ag.wq6dUokC.UDG1_U69ztis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Heterosexual Hate Crimes?
The "gay marriage debate" presses on, especially in Massachusetts. The state was the first to legalize gay marriages, and now the big hubbub is about state legislation that might ban gay marriage. But there's another side of things - one that you might not expect. With everyone paying attention to hate crimes against homosexuals who don't want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable", who's going to pay attention when stones are thrown in the opposite direction?
Don't heterosexuals have the right to not want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable"?
Since it's hard for many people to see heterosexuality as "under attack" (verbally, if not otherwise), I'll make reference to an article that caught my attention. It appears that the homosexual community has started slinging hateful terms at heterosexuals, including the popular term "breeder". For all of the plethora of hateful terms used to refer to homosexuals, it seems natural that terms would arise to insult and berate the originators. And white racial slurs now exist for just about every race under the sun, so will slurs against sexualities.
"Breeders", the new slur against heterosexuals (and possibly any couple/person with a child) should be treated just as severely as any other hateful word thrown about, shouldn't it? Shouldn't a homosexual verbally attacking a heterosexual be just as offensive as the other way around?
But it doesn't stop there. In Massachusetts, a gay man confronted a woman because she was circulating (and had signed) a petition to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The altercation lasted less than a minute, and the man later admitted regret that he "exploded" about the incident, but he could still be charged with disorderly conduct. The incident itself has sparked some debate (more than usual, I suppose) about what constitutes a "hate incident".
People siding with the gay man say that the woman committed a "hate incident" merely by SIGNING the petition. The Anti-Defamation League "considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable". And yet there's a group of Catholics in the area who argue that by that logic, that is what's happening to THEM - being made to feel uncomfortable due to the approval of the same-sex marriages (and homosexuality in general) based on their faith and its disapproval of it all.
So what will come of this? Frankly, it seems we are at an impasse based on the terminology everyone is using. Since when did "feeling comfortable" become a right? Since when did being made to feel uncomfortable mean that liberties have been attacked and the incident is hateful? Well if that's how we're going to play the game, then I want to sue the article itself, because I feel uncomfortable with the whole gay marriage debate in general - and printing articles about the gay marriage debate would be considered "the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information", wouldn't it?
We all need to relax and be adults. It is NOT our right to feel comfortable. Anyone who's flown on an airplane certainly knows that. Skins need to be thickened, opinions need to be handled with a little more tact and diplomacy, and we need to stop hating as much as we currently do (and accuse others of doing). I'll leave the last thought to a quote in the article made by Provincetown, Massachusetts board of selectmen chairwoman Cheryl Andrews:
"I don’t know anyone who hates heterosexuals. We wouldn’t be here without them."
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=537521
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Don't heterosexuals have the right to not want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable"?
Since it's hard for many people to see heterosexuality as "under attack" (verbally, if not otherwise), I'll make reference to an article that caught my attention. It appears that the homosexual community has started slinging hateful terms at heterosexuals, including the popular term "breeder". For all of the plethora of hateful terms used to refer to homosexuals, it seems natural that terms would arise to insult and berate the originators. And white racial slurs now exist for just about every race under the sun, so will slurs against sexualities.
"Breeders", the new slur against heterosexuals (and possibly any couple/person with a child) should be treated just as severely as any other hateful word thrown about, shouldn't it? Shouldn't a homosexual verbally attacking a heterosexual be just as offensive as the other way around?
But it doesn't stop there. In Massachusetts, a gay man confronted a woman because she was circulating (and had signed) a petition to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The altercation lasted less than a minute, and the man later admitted regret that he "exploded" about the incident, but he could still be charged with disorderly conduct. The incident itself has sparked some debate (more than usual, I suppose) about what constitutes a "hate incident".
People siding with the gay man say that the woman committed a "hate incident" merely by SIGNING the petition. The Anti-Defamation League "considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable". And yet there's a group of Catholics in the area who argue that by that logic, that is what's happening to THEM - being made to feel uncomfortable due to the approval of the same-sex marriages (and homosexuality in general) based on their faith and its disapproval of it all.
So what will come of this? Frankly, it seems we are at an impasse based on the terminology everyone is using. Since when did "feeling comfortable" become a right? Since when did being made to feel uncomfortable mean that liberties have been attacked and the incident is hateful? Well if that's how we're going to play the game, then I want to sue the article itself, because I feel uncomfortable with the whole gay marriage debate in general - and printing articles about the gay marriage debate would be considered "the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information", wouldn't it?
We all need to relax and be adults. It is NOT our right to feel comfortable. Anyone who's flown on an airplane certainly knows that. Skins need to be thickened, opinions need to be handled with a little more tact and diplomacy, and we need to stop hating as much as we currently do (and accuse others of doing). I'll leave the last thought to a quote in the article made by Provincetown, Massachusetts board of selectmen chairwoman Cheryl Andrews:
"I don’t know anyone who hates heterosexuals. We wouldn’t be here without them."
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=537521
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
