We headed into Heaven On Seven completely excited over the prospect of their "all-you-can-eat" deal being available every day for lunch and dinner. We sat down at the table, ordered our drinks, and took a look at the menu. We found the AYCE section, but were a little dismayed that it only featured fried chicken, fried catfish, gumbo, jambalaya, and a bunch of sides. Yes, you could have as much as you want, but how much of those items would we want, after browsing the very exciting rest of the menu?
And that's when we saw it: "Jimmy, Feed Me!" - the chef's selection of Seven Heavenly Courses. It's basically paying $35 per person to tell the chef, "My meal is in your hands." For us, it was like being a celebrity judge on Iron Chef or any other Food Network judging show. We didn't know what we'd be getting, but we knew there would be seven rounds to see what our chef would be offering today.
Our server informed us it was pretty much "an appetizer round, then a soup round, then pretty much a bunch of smaller-portion entrees. He also made sure our table had no allergies. And while there are foods that we each dislike (I am not a fan of tomatoes; she dislikes sweet potatoes), we decided to throw caution to the wind. After all, if the CHEF thinks it's delicious, maybe our preconceptions could be wrong.
Read more!
Showing posts with label restaurants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label restaurants. Show all posts
Monday, December 26, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Endless Shrimp, Endless Misery
I see going to Red Lobster as mostly a celebration / special occasion place. The prices are way up there, the portions aren't really that great, but when the ol' anniversary rolls around, I know the little lady is going to want lobster and as long as we're paying for lobster, I might as well do so at a place where they have endless Cheddar Bay Biscuits to keep me happy.
In fact, Red Lobster pretty much has accepted that's all they're good for, since every time you come in, they seat you and flat-out ask you if there's a special occasion you're celebrating. Because they know it's a rare event that someone just says "I'm hungry for dinner - let's just go to Red Lobster."
Well, the special occasion we were celebrating tonight was the seasonal return of the Endless Shrimp promotion. It's one of the only times I'll volunteer making the trip and paying the price to eat here, because it's one of the only times I feel I can finally get some of that lost money back and really make it worth my time. But the past two times we've been to this place for the Endless Shrimp, it's just gotten worse and worse. Today just topped it all with a one-two combination of ineptitude and inattention.
To start, we had a comfort issue situation. The booths are Red Lobster are not fat-person-friendly, and when we were seated at such a table, it took about 20 seconds of wedging and squirming trying to fit my ass and gut in appropriately that as soon as our server came, I asked if it would be possible to get seated at a table with chairs. She was very polite and could see exactly why we were requesting it, and she went to ask the hostess about it. Sure enough, 2 minutes later we were on our way to a table with chairs where I fit much more comfortably (as long as we staggered seating with the other tables so my chair could pull out enough with nobody behind me and they could do the same for our empty chair).
Unfortunately, this table was located in what I am calling the "Inattention Zone". Read more!
In fact, Red Lobster pretty much has accepted that's all they're good for, since every time you come in, they seat you and flat-out ask you if there's a special occasion you're celebrating. Because they know it's a rare event that someone just says "I'm hungry for dinner - let's just go to Red Lobster."
Well, the special occasion we were celebrating tonight was the seasonal return of the Endless Shrimp promotion. It's one of the only times I'll volunteer making the trip and paying the price to eat here, because it's one of the only times I feel I can finally get some of that lost money back and really make it worth my time. But the past two times we've been to this place for the Endless Shrimp, it's just gotten worse and worse. Today just topped it all with a one-two combination of ineptitude and inattention.
To start, we had a comfort issue situation. The booths are Red Lobster are not fat-person-friendly, and when we were seated at such a table, it took about 20 seconds of wedging and squirming trying to fit my ass and gut in appropriately that as soon as our server came, I asked if it would be possible to get seated at a table with chairs. She was very polite and could see exactly why we were requesting it, and she went to ask the hostess about it. Sure enough, 2 minutes later we were on our way to a table with chairs where I fit much more comfortably (as long as we staggered seating with the other tables so my chair could pull out enough with nobody behind me and they could do the same for our empty chair).
Unfortunately, this table was located in what I am calling the "Inattention Zone". Read more!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 2)
For those of you just joining, I highly recommend a visit to Part 1 of this article just to catch up: Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)
In this piece, I want to break down the law's language in traditional George Carlin format, pointing out that this law pretty much would ban ALL new restaurants and not just fast-food restaurants - except for a few choice words and I'll explain how any fast-food franchise can easily duck under the law because of them.
Just as a reminder, here what the law considers to be fast-food restaurants:
"any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
Well, let's start at the beginning...
"which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises": Those are the only two places you CAN consume food! AT the place and NOT AT the place! I mean ANY food location nowadays, no matter how fancy and sit-down or greasy and take-it-and-leave, gives you the option to place an order for take-out. They understand you might not have the time to eat it THERE. Or you may just prefer to eat it NOT THERE, like at HOME. Also, you might as well just say "which dispenses food" - since food is generally dispensed for consumption. That's the general idea of food - that you consume it. I suppose this means a business that dispenses food for you to WEAR would be allowed to move in? So far, this ban applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except the food-as-clothing industry).
"and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu": ALL MENUS ARE LIMITED! You're not allowed to walk into a Burger King or a P.F. Chang's or a Fogo De Chao and order up a yak salad with ostrich chutney garnish. All menus are finite, limited by the abilities of the chef, the availability of ingredients, and the personal desire of the restaurant. They don't want to include endangered animals for you to eat - that's their prerogative. The McDonald's fry cook isn't skilled enough to POACH your eggs that go on your McMuffin - tough luck, pal. It's illegal to obtain and cook human flesh for consumption - don't expect to see the phone book as an addendum to your table's menu. So far, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except for hypothetical hypno-restaurants that can put patrons in hypnotic trances and convince them they've eaten anything on an unlimited menu while serving them Kraft Mac & Cheese).
"items prepared in advance": Well of course they're prepared in advance - when did you plan on preparing it? In the guy's stomach? All restaurants have to prepare food before they serve it to you. If you wanted to add the stipulation "prepared in advance of ordering", there's still prep work. Any good restaurant has to save time by pre-assembling items, or even marinating meats in anticipation that someone will order it that night, or using bread that has already been baked or pre-mixed dough even. I'm incredibly skeptical that there exists a single restaurant that can make every item on its menu FROM SCRATCH and not until the order is placed and it can still be served fast enough that the customer doesn't leave, possibly mumbling, "if I wanted incredibly slow food made from scratch, I'd be at home with my wife instead of at a fancy restaurant with my mistress..." Fact of the matter is, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (unless all they do is raw, uncooked, unprocessed food, and at that point you might as well be foraging in the woods for sustenance and saving yourself $20 per person).
"prepared or heated quickly": I don't think there's much to say about this. If you're not preparing or heating your food at a decent pace, you shouldn't qualify as a business. It's called "the danger zone" and it's a temperature range at which bacteria can grow and multiply and infect your food. The longer food goes from storage to preparation to your mouth, the more likely you are to get sick and sue for food poisoning. ALL FOOD BUSINESSES know that and do those things in a timely fashion. Also, "quickly" is too subjective of a term - any cooking that takes shorter time to cook than "leaving it in the sun, possibly on a metal pan" can be deemed to have been cooked "quickly" by the Amish. This ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except Brother Jebediah's Sun-Cooked Meat Emporium)
Now, we finally come to "no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers", which technically seem to separate the actual restaurants from the "fast-food joints" that the law is trying to stop from opening new locations. But don't worry, McDonald's and Burger Kings, they're both easy to step around.
"no table orders": Okay, so you have to be able to take orders at a table in order to qualify as a true "restaurant"? Note that the law doesn't even say anyone has to be SITTING at a table. The table area is just the place where all orders have to be taken in order to qualify. Rather, at least ONE order has to be taken from a table to simply NOT fall into the category of "no table orders". So how do you side-step this one?
Put a table over the counters. It doesn't matter if there's one long table placed over the entire counter, or a cheap IKEA table draped right on top of each counter segment with the cash register placed on top and your McJob cashier/waitstaff standing at the "table". You can even place a small table in front of the drive-thru speaker and one in front of the pay window and pick-up window. "Thank you, please drive to the next TABLE." Voila - you're taking table orders and you can move right in with a new location!
"food served in disposable wrapping or containers": Okay, I have to start off with the obvious jab that everything used to serve food is disposable (in the definition that everything is "able to be disposed of"). A restaurant can give you your burger on a plate, but a plate is just as disposable as a paper lining you'd find wrapped around a McDonald's cheeseburger. For the sake of argument, I will admit that one definition of "disposable" means "INTENDED to be disposed of". I guess McDonald's could just print pictures on all wrappers and containers and call them "collectible" and you can complete the set - that would insinuate that they should NOT be disposed of, but rather collected for some reason. You'd think that the real clencher here is that McDonald's food is wrapped or put into containers (while a restaurant will not wrap food it's serving to you), which means it's just fast-food that this clause affects. To be fair, any legit restaurant will let you place a to-go order and all of that food will be in disposable wrapping or containers! It doesn't say that food is ONLY served in disposable wrapping/containers, right? Which means that any restaurant willing to place a to-go order or let you take food home in a doggy-bag is going to be banned. Once more, this clause of the ban would apply to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except those snooty enough to deny you eating their food anywhere other than their restaurant).
So really, all it comes down to is whether or not you'll ever take a food order from a table. All other pieces of this "law" boil down to no food businesses at all being allowed to set up shop in South L.A. (other than those wacky/insane exceptions). Any fast-food place would be able to open up shop as long as they stick a table somewhere and let someone order from it, as I've suggested above. Frankly, the law suggests that you must hit ALL of those marks to qualify not being able to open a new location - which means that once you miss the mark on ANY (like taking orders from a table), you've got free reign in South L.A.!
Take that, Los Angeles City Council! Your law is useless and a waste of taxpayer money for all the debate and insanity that must have transpired before you foolishly signed this moratorium into effect.
Don't you agree? Have I missed anything? Can you understand how each piece of this law is vague and moronic? Was my homage to George Carlin acceptable?
Please Digg this article and join me in mocking the L.A. City Council!
Read more!
In this piece, I want to break down the law's language in traditional George Carlin format, pointing out that this law pretty much would ban ALL new restaurants and not just fast-food restaurants - except for a few choice words and I'll explain how any fast-food franchise can easily duck under the law because of them.
Just as a reminder, here what the law considers to be fast-food restaurants:
"any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
Well, let's start at the beginning...
"which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises": Those are the only two places you CAN consume food! AT the place and NOT AT the place! I mean ANY food location nowadays, no matter how fancy and sit-down or greasy and take-it-and-leave, gives you the option to place an order for take-out. They understand you might not have the time to eat it THERE. Or you may just prefer to eat it NOT THERE, like at HOME. Also, you might as well just say "which dispenses food" - since food is generally dispensed for consumption. That's the general idea of food - that you consume it. I suppose this means a business that dispenses food for you to WEAR would be allowed to move in? So far, this ban applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except the food-as-clothing industry).
"and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu": ALL MENUS ARE LIMITED! You're not allowed to walk into a Burger King or a P.F. Chang's or a Fogo De Chao and order up a yak salad with ostrich chutney garnish. All menus are finite, limited by the abilities of the chef, the availability of ingredients, and the personal desire of the restaurant. They don't want to include endangered animals for you to eat - that's their prerogative. The McDonald's fry cook isn't skilled enough to POACH your eggs that go on your McMuffin - tough luck, pal. It's illegal to obtain and cook human flesh for consumption - don't expect to see the phone book as an addendum to your table's menu. So far, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except for hypothetical hypno-restaurants that can put patrons in hypnotic trances and convince them they've eaten anything on an unlimited menu while serving them Kraft Mac & Cheese).
"items prepared in advance": Well of course they're prepared in advance - when did you plan on preparing it? In the guy's stomach? All restaurants have to prepare food before they serve it to you. If you wanted to add the stipulation "prepared in advance of ordering", there's still prep work. Any good restaurant has to save time by pre-assembling items, or even marinating meats in anticipation that someone will order it that night, or using bread that has already been baked or pre-mixed dough even. I'm incredibly skeptical that there exists a single restaurant that can make every item on its menu FROM SCRATCH and not until the order is placed and it can still be served fast enough that the customer doesn't leave, possibly mumbling, "if I wanted incredibly slow food made from scratch, I'd be at home with my wife instead of at a fancy restaurant with my mistress..." Fact of the matter is, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (unless all they do is raw, uncooked, unprocessed food, and at that point you might as well be foraging in the woods for sustenance and saving yourself $20 per person).
"prepared or heated quickly": I don't think there's much to say about this. If you're not preparing or heating your food at a decent pace, you shouldn't qualify as a business. It's called "the danger zone" and it's a temperature range at which bacteria can grow and multiply and infect your food. The longer food goes from storage to preparation to your mouth, the more likely you are to get sick and sue for food poisoning. ALL FOOD BUSINESSES know that and do those things in a timely fashion. Also, "quickly" is too subjective of a term - any cooking that takes shorter time to cook than "leaving it in the sun, possibly on a metal pan" can be deemed to have been cooked "quickly" by the Amish. This ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except Brother Jebediah's Sun-Cooked Meat Emporium)
Now, we finally come to "no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers", which technically seem to separate the actual restaurants from the "fast-food joints" that the law is trying to stop from opening new locations. But don't worry, McDonald's and Burger Kings, they're both easy to step around.
"no table orders": Okay, so you have to be able to take orders at a table in order to qualify as a true "restaurant"? Note that the law doesn't even say anyone has to be SITTING at a table. The table area is just the place where all orders have to be taken in order to qualify. Rather, at least ONE order has to be taken from a table to simply NOT fall into the category of "no table orders". So how do you side-step this one?
Put a table over the counters. It doesn't matter if there's one long table placed over the entire counter, or a cheap IKEA table draped right on top of each counter segment with the cash register placed on top and your McJob cashier/waitstaff standing at the "table". You can even place a small table in front of the drive-thru speaker and one in front of the pay window and pick-up window. "Thank you, please drive to the next TABLE." Voila - you're taking table orders and you can move right in with a new location!
"food served in disposable wrapping or containers": Okay, I have to start off with the obvious jab that everything used to serve food is disposable (in the definition that everything is "able to be disposed of"). A restaurant can give you your burger on a plate, but a plate is just as disposable as a paper lining you'd find wrapped around a McDonald's cheeseburger. For the sake of argument, I will admit that one definition of "disposable" means "INTENDED to be disposed of". I guess McDonald's could just print pictures on all wrappers and containers and call them "collectible" and you can complete the set - that would insinuate that they should NOT be disposed of, but rather collected for some reason. You'd think that the real clencher here is that McDonald's food is wrapped or put into containers (while a restaurant will not wrap food it's serving to you), which means it's just fast-food that this clause affects. To be fair, any legit restaurant will let you place a to-go order and all of that food will be in disposable wrapping or containers! It doesn't say that food is ONLY served in disposable wrapping/containers, right? Which means that any restaurant willing to place a to-go order or let you take food home in a doggy-bag is going to be banned. Once more, this clause of the ban would apply to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except those snooty enough to deny you eating their food anywhere other than their restaurant).
So really, all it comes down to is whether or not you'll ever take a food order from a table. All other pieces of this "law" boil down to no food businesses at all being allowed to set up shop in South L.A. (other than those wacky/insane exceptions). Any fast-food place would be able to open up shop as long as they stick a table somewhere and let someone order from it, as I've suggested above. Frankly, the law suggests that you must hit ALL of those marks to qualify not being able to open a new location - which means that once you miss the mark on ANY (like taking orders from a table), you've got free reign in South L.A.!
Take that, Los Angeles City Council! Your law is useless and a waste of taxpayer money for all the debate and insanity that must have transpired before you foolishly signed this moratorium into effect.
Don't you agree? Have I missed anything? Can you understand how each piece of this law is vague and moronic? Was my homage to George Carlin acceptable?
Please Digg this article and join me in mocking the L.A. City Council!
Read more!
Friday, August 01, 2008
Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)
If you were to ask me to provide an honest answer regarding the question of our youth (and our populous in general) getting obese - I'd completely agree. The data doesn't lie, and neither do my eyeballs. People are getting fatter - and more people are getting fat. I would never, though, say it was an "epidemic", since that's supposed to be a word meaning a rapidly-spreading disease. Despite some crappy article I read once about how if you have several obese friends then you're more likely to become obese, weight problems are not a disease (social or otherwise). You can't "catch obesity" - not even from toilet seats.
But it's our right to be fat.
It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).
So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.
They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.
Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?
Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.
That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!
Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?
BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.
I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.
Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.
"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.
You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.
That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
But it's our right to be fat.
It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).
So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.
They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.
Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?
Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.
That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!
Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?
BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.
I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.
Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.
"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.
You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.
That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!
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!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh 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 the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
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!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh 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 the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
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, September 17, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
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!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth 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 learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
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!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth 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 learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
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
Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
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!
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 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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
