LTH Home

Chef upset after he's busted for foie gras

Chef upset after he's busted for foie gras
  • Forum HomePost Reply BackTop
    Page 2 of 4
  • Post #31 - August 29th, 2006, 10:05 pm
    Post #31 - August 29th, 2006, 10:05 pm Post #31 - August 29th, 2006, 10:05 pm
    JimInLoganSquare wrote:
    alysongrace wrote:
    ab wrote:I'd like to find the person who ratted and punch them square in the liver.


    I'll help you :P


    Me, too, so long as we can get there by El. :wink:


    Then go eat some bootleg foie gras. And that would define fine dining an experience, pleasure from all senses :D
  • Post #32 - August 30th, 2006, 8:11 am
    Post #32 - August 30th, 2006, 8:11 am Post #32 - August 30th, 2006, 8:11 am
    One thing to keep in mind:

    Chicago has an election next February. A lot of the anti-foie gras voters, notably Burton Natarus, have strong opponents. We can get this ban overturned by next March.

    It can be our new slogan: "We like foie gras and we vote."
  • Post #33 - August 30th, 2006, 11:44 am
    Post #33 - August 30th, 2006, 11:44 am Post #33 - August 30th, 2006, 11:44 am
    I also think the real and amateur lawyers may be missing the actual point of serving foie gras, free or charged. I think there is a desire to challenge the law and once they enforce it, you have standing before the court you may not otherwise have.

    Not to restart an old debate, or get too libertarian on you, but exactly what is the city's reason for banning foie gras? There is no evidence it hurts anyone (any more than a Double Whopper with bacon & mayo, say) other than ducks and I am pretty sure the city does not want to go down that path, or into that Pandora's Box, even if PETA would love it.

    The Supreme Court seems to frown on laws without some benefit to the general populace, and someone needs to help me out on where that would be found in banning foie gras.
  • Post #34 - August 30th, 2006, 5:49 pm
    Post #34 - August 30th, 2006, 5:49 pm Post #34 - August 30th, 2006, 5:49 pm
    If the city banned the sale of fur coats, could furriers just sell the linings and attach the fur for no charge?

    I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.

    I guess enforcement of any law can be as selective as they want it to be.
    ...Pedro
  • Post #35 - August 30th, 2006, 6:08 pm
    Post #35 - August 30th, 2006, 6:08 pm Post #35 - August 30th, 2006, 6:08 pm
    Dickson,

    It's for the children.
    Watch Sky Full of Bacon, the Chicago food HD podcast!
    New episode: Soil, Corn, Cows and Cheese
    Watch the Reader's James Beard Award-winning Key Ingredient here.
  • Post #36 - August 30th, 2006, 6:11 pm
    Post #36 - August 30th, 2006, 6:11 pm Post #36 - August 30th, 2006, 6:11 pm
    Why do you hate America?
  • Post #37 - August 30th, 2006, 10:30 pm
    Post #37 - August 30th, 2006, 10:30 pm Post #37 - August 30th, 2006, 10:30 pm
    YoYoPedro wrote:I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.


    Oh, good gravy, you are right.
    I can't tell you how many accidents I have almost been in while on my motorcycle this year - almost always a result of cell phone-using drivers.
    Didn't anyone see that episode of Mythbusters?
  • Post #38 - August 30th, 2006, 10:37 pm
    Post #38 - August 30th, 2006, 10:37 pm Post #38 - August 30th, 2006, 10:37 pm
    johnny wrote:
    I can't tell you how many accidents I have almost been in while on my motorcycle this year - almost always a result of cell phone-using drivers.
    Didn't anyone see that episode of Mythbusters?


    No, I must've missed it.
    ...Pedro
  • Post #39 - August 31st, 2006, 4:06 am
    Post #39 - August 31st, 2006, 4:06 am Post #39 - August 31st, 2006, 4:06 am
    johnny wrote:
    YoYoPedro wrote:I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.


    Oh, good gravy, you are right.
    I can't tell you how many accidents I have almost been in while on my motorcycle this year - almost always a result of cell phone-using drivers.
    Didn't anyone see that episode of Mythbusters?


    I didn't see it, either. However, interestingly enough, I've read of several studies that show that driving and talking on a hands-free set is just as distracting as talking with one hand to your ear. I know, counterintuitive, but here's some numbers from the National Safety Council.

    These data demonstrate that the phone conversation itself resulted in significant slowing in the response to simulated traffic signals, as well as an increase in the likelihood of missing these signals. Moreover, the fact that hand-held and hands-free cell phones resulted in equivalent dual-task deficits indicates that the interference was not due to peripheral factors such as holding the phone while conversing.


    In other words, if safety is the issue, this study suggests you have to ban cell phone calls period, hands-free or not.
  • Post #40 - August 31st, 2006, 4:51 am
    Post #40 - August 31st, 2006, 4:51 am Post #40 - August 31st, 2006, 4:51 am
    Binko wrote:However, interestingly enough, I've read of several studies that show that driving and talking on a hands-free set is just as distracting as talking with one hand to your ear.
    ...
    In other words, if safety is the issue, this study suggests you have to ban cell phone calls period, hands-free or not.


    Coming back to our core topic, BBC: Crash risk 'doubles when eating'
    Joe G.

    "Whatever may be wrong with the world, at least it has some good things to eat." -- Cowboy Jack Clement
  • Post #41 - August 31st, 2006, 6:08 am
    Post #41 - August 31st, 2006, 6:08 am Post #41 - August 31st, 2006, 6:08 am
    My mention of the cellphone handset ban was only to compare the various levels of enforcement that the city and its agencies can choose to have for any of the foolish laws that they pass. FWIW, I think that there should be a ban on applying cosmetics while driving. And while I believe that helmets and seat belts are good ideas, I also believe in natural selection, and those who don't want to use such safety equipment will eventually eliminate themselves. In the mean time, insurance companies could add an exclusion that says that they will not pay for medical expenses of their insureds if they aren't wearing seatbelts or helmets, and it would be far more effective than any law regulating their usage.
    ...Pedro
  • Post #42 - August 31st, 2006, 6:26 am
    Post #42 - August 31st, 2006, 6:26 am Post #42 - August 31st, 2006, 6:26 am
    YoYoPedro wrote:
    I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.

    I guess enforcement of any law can be as selective as they want it to be.


    They sure weren't selective with me enforcing this law. I live in Indiana and got a ticket in Chicago for talking on my cellphone. Driver's license was confiscated and HAD to return to Chicago, go to court IN Chicago, and to top it off the ticket was dismissed because the cop didn't show up. :evil: :x
    Bruce
    Plenipotentiary
    bruce@bdbbq.com

    Raw meat should NOT have an ingredients list!!
  • Post #43 - August 31st, 2006, 6:35 am
    Post #43 - August 31st, 2006, 6:35 am Post #43 - August 31st, 2006, 6:35 am
    Bruce wrote:
    They sure weren't selective with me enforcing this law. I live in Indiana and got a ticket in Chicago for talking on my cellphone. Driver's license was confiscated and HAD to return to Chicago, go to court IN Chicago, and to top it off the ticket was dismissed because the cop didn't show up. :evil: :x


    The cop was probably too embarrassed to show up in court for that ticket. I hope you enjoyed a fine meal while you were back here! :)
    ...Pedro
  • Post #44 - August 31st, 2006, 6:42 am
    Post #44 - August 31st, 2006, 6:42 am Post #44 - August 31st, 2006, 6:42 am
    Bruce wrote:They sure weren't selective with me enforcing this law. I live in Indiana and got a ticket in Chicago for talking on my cellphone. Driver's license was confiscated and HAD to return to Chicago, go to court IN Chicago, and to top it off the ticket was dismissed because the cop didn't show up. :evil: :x

    [offtopic]Bruce, do you have a AAA "bond" card? Ever since I had my license confiscated by a bad cop over some dumb thing some twenty years ago, and I learned that this wouldn't have happened if I'd been able to show him a bond card (I still would have received a ticket, but would have kept my license, fergodsakes), I joined the Chicago Motor Club AAA thing, and have considered the $50 or whatever yearly membership fee a small price to pay for that never happening again.[/offtopic]
  • Post #45 - August 31st, 2006, 7:49 am
    Post #45 - August 31st, 2006, 7:49 am Post #45 - August 31st, 2006, 7:49 am
    YoYoPedro wrote:I also believe in natural selection, and those who don't want to use such safety equipment will eventually eliminate themselves.


    [slightly offtopic]That's only applicable if their fatal accident doesn't wound or injure anyone else - and they haven't spawned any offspring yet. Not really an effective outlook.[/slightly offtopic]
    -Pete
  • Post #46 - August 31st, 2006, 8:02 am
    Post #46 - August 31st, 2006, 8:02 am Post #46 - August 31st, 2006, 8:02 am
    riddlemay wrote:[offtopic]Bruce, do you have a AAA "bond" card? Ever since I had my license confiscated by a bad cop over some dumb thing some twenty years ago, and I learned that this wouldn't have happened if I'd been able to show him a bond card (I still would have received a ticket, but would have kept my license, fergodsakes), I joined the Chicago Motor Club AAA thing, and have considered the $50 or whatever yearly membership fee a small price to pay for that never happening again.[/offtopic]


    My licence is still from Connecticut. I got a ticket for driving through a yellow light a few weeks ago (Don't ask.. or rather I still have CT plates so I get tickets for doing perfectly leagal things :roll: ). But rather than take my license the officer just had me sign a little slip prommising to pay or appear. I would have been glowing with an inner rage if I missed the Belgans and beer because I didn't have I.D. :wink:
  • Post #47 - August 31st, 2006, 8:09 am
    Post #47 - August 31st, 2006, 8:09 am Post #47 - August 31st, 2006, 8:09 am
    Pete wrote:
    [slightly offtopic]That's only applicable if their fatal accident doesn't wound or injure anyone else - and they haven't spawned any offspring yet. Not really an effective outlook.[/slightly offtopic]


    This could go on and on, but I can't really see how anyone's failure to wear a helmet or seatbelt would be the cause of an accident, or the cause of a wound or injury to someone else, only the cause of THEIR OWN injury or death. And their spawn might be more inclined to wear a seatbelt or helmet after seeing or hearing why they are now parentless. So I think it could prove to be very effective. Don't get me wrong, as a person who races cars on weekends, I'm all for safety equipment, and make sure my belt and all my passengers belts are buckled before the engine is started. I just believe that the government should stick to doing that for which it was created instead of legislating us all into the ground. But I would agree, we're getting a little off topic here.
    ...Pedro
  • Post #48 - August 31st, 2006, 9:09 am
    Post #48 - August 31st, 2006, 9:09 am Post #48 - August 31st, 2006, 9:09 am
    Back to the topic at hand:
    Is Hot Doug's still serving foi-garnished dogs?
    I'm assuming he can continue to do so because the foi would be considered a garnish?
    Oh man, now I'm craving Hot Doug's.
  • Post #49 - August 31st, 2006, 9:13 am
    Post #49 - August 31st, 2006, 9:13 am Post #49 - August 31st, 2006, 9:13 am
    johnny wrote:Oh man, now I'm craving Hot Doug's.


    Well, it is Friday, the duck fat fries are cooking...
    ...Pedro
  • Post #50 - August 31st, 2006, 9:17 am
    Post #50 - August 31st, 2006, 9:17 am Post #50 - August 31st, 2006, 9:17 am
    johnny wrote:Back to the topic at hand:
    Is Hot Doug's still serving foi-garnished dogs?
    I'm assuming he can continue to do so because the foi would be considered a garnish?
    Oh man, now I'm craving Hot Doug's.


    Check out the specials page at http://www.hotdougs.com and head over there, because he's closed for 11 days starting on Monday.

    And I don't think the garnish argument works.
    Ed Fisher
    my chicago food photos

    RIP LTH.
  • Post #51 - August 31st, 2006, 10:01 am
    Post #51 - August 31st, 2006, 10:01 am Post #51 - August 31st, 2006, 10:01 am
    Anyone interesting in getting rid of the ordinance?

    The real way is to get rid of the people who voted for it. We need to have a list of those who voted for it and the opponent.

    The election is in February.

    In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus. His primary opponent is a guy named Brendan Reilly (formerly worked for Madigan and Vallas). Hopefully other people can add to this so that we can make a list of pro-ordinance people and the strongest opponent.
  • Post #52 - August 31st, 2006, 10:11 am
    Post #52 - August 31st, 2006, 10:11 am Post #52 - August 31st, 2006, 10:11 am
    In any case, re Doug's, the last two times I went there the foie gras was worked into a duck sausage, not chunks on top as a year or so earlier.
    Watch Sky Full of Bacon, the Chicago food HD podcast!
    New episode: Soil, Corn, Cows and Cheese
    Watch the Reader's James Beard Award-winning Key Ingredient here.
  • Post #53 - August 31st, 2006, 10:14 am
    Post #53 - August 31st, 2006, 10:14 am Post #53 - August 31st, 2006, 10:14 am
    DML wrote:Anyone interesting in getting rid of the ordinance?

    The real way is to get rid of the people who voted for it. We need to have a list of those who voted for it and the opponent.

    The election is in February.

    In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus. His primary opponent is a guy named Brendan Reilly (formerly worked for Madigan and Vallas). Hopefully other people can add to this so that we can make a list of pro-ordinance people and the strongest opponent.

    While the foie-gras law is dumb, it surprises me that anyone would be so "single-issue" as to use it as a basis to vote out a candidate. I don't know...I like my fatty goose liver as much as the next guy, but issues like zoning, development, delivery of city services, crime, et. al., seem kind of important, too.

    Chacun son gout, however!
  • Post #54 - August 31st, 2006, 10:23 am
    Post #54 - August 31st, 2006, 10:23 am Post #54 - August 31st, 2006, 10:23 am
    Mike G wrote:In any case, re Doug's, the last two times I went there the foie gras was worked into a duck sausage, not chunks on top as a year or so earlier.


    What is it they say about politics and sausage making? (Somebody must have made that joke around here somewhere already... :oops: )
    Joe G.

    "Whatever may be wrong with the world, at least it has some good things to eat." -- Cowboy Jack Clement
  • Post #55 - August 31st, 2006, 10:26 am
    Post #55 - August 31st, 2006, 10:26 am Post #55 - August 31st, 2006, 10:26 am
    Riddlemay, I tend to agree with you about single issues per se, but I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of aldermen go down for a silly, lots-of-noise-little-real-impact piece of grandstanding like this, just to keep them from passing the next 50 encroachments on our lives that sound good and do next to nothing.
    Watch Sky Full of Bacon, the Chicago food HD podcast!
    New episode: Soil, Corn, Cows and Cheese
    Watch the Reader's James Beard Award-winning Key Ingredient here.
  • Post #56 - August 31st, 2006, 10:30 am
    Post #56 - August 31st, 2006, 10:30 am Post #56 - August 31st, 2006, 10:30 am
    DML wrote:Anyone interesting in getting rid of the ordinance?

    The real way is to get rid of the people who voted for it. We need to have a list of those who voted for it and the opponent.

    The election is in February.

    In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus. His primary opponent is a guy named Brendan Reilly (formerly worked for Madigan and Vallas). Hopefully other people can add to this so that we can make a list of pro-ordinance people and the strongest opponent.


    Well, it'd be an uphill battle. Essentially, you'd have to vote out ALL BUT TWO of the incumbents, as only ONE ALDERMAN had the guts (or liver?) to stand up to the foolishness. 45th Ward Alderman Patrick J. Levar was the only "Nay" vote, and 43rd Ward Alderman Vi Daley was "Absent". All the rest voted "Aye" on C.J. p. 75180 -- Amendment Of Title 7, Chapter 39 Of Municipal Code Of Chicago By Addition Of New Sections 001 And 005 Prohibiting Sale Of Foie Gras By Food Establishments.


    http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/rollcall/042606index.html
    ...Pedro
  • Post #57 - August 31st, 2006, 11:08 am
    Post #57 - August 31st, 2006, 11:08 am Post #57 - August 31st, 2006, 11:08 am
    YoYoPedro wrote:If the city banned the sale of fur coats, could furriers just sell the linings and attach the fur for no charge?


    That's a terrible analogy and you know it! :wink: My understanding of the law, and how it's written, is that only the sale of foie gras is banned. How that's defined, if at all, in the statute or in similar statutes, I don't know. The statute could be as overbroad as you can imagine (i.e., you get a fine if you even think about putting foie gras on a menu), but that's all irrelevant because it all comes down to enforcement. We can argue and analogize theoretically until the cows come home about whether a restaurant can legally circumvent the ban. But, first, the ban has to be enforced in a meaningful way -- what I mean is, more than a few letters threatening enforcement. Then, there has to be a hearing, prior to which, a restaurant will presumably assert any and all defenses to the ban. Only until it shakes out in some court will we really understand the full extent of the ban, that is, if the City wants to bother even attempting to enforce it. There are enough restaurants still serving it to make me think that they're not exactly sweating it.

    As you pointed out, plenty of people are now openly using their cell phones while driving. In the case of that ban, enforcement definitely seems either lax or a problem. While I don't like to use my cell phone while driving, when I had to during the time right after the ban, I would surreptitiously place it on speaker, hold it below the window, and shout into it. Now, I tend to just forget about the damn ban and use it outright. Maybe I'll get a ticket someday, but I'm one of thousands of drivers on the road at any given time. I think my chances are pretty good. Maybe that will be the case with foie gras. One can only hope, right?

    In the meantime, what about secret passwords, the user of which magically gets the secret menu with the foie gras? Like an inpenetrable secret society, members can dine on the delicacy without fear of reprisal.
  • Post #58 - August 31st, 2006, 11:10 am
    Post #58 - August 31st, 2006, 11:10 am Post #58 - August 31st, 2006, 11:10 am
    Unfortunately, I can't vote in Chicago - but IMHO there are PLENTY of reasons for voting out Joe Moore. I live less than a block from his Ward, and while there do not appear to be any purveyors of goose or duck liver, nor any lurking Wal-Marts there, there are certainly no shortage of gang members and petty criminals, not to mention health and building code violations - and even animal abuse.

    I agree that it's a single issue - but I would suggest that the supporting Aldermen are playing "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain..." with their constituents and avoiding the real issues. I'd also suggest that Chicagoans ask for an ordinance preventing Alderpersons from proposing ordinances that do not affect their own Ward's citizens.
  • Post #59 - August 31st, 2006, 11:28 am
    Post #59 - August 31st, 2006, 11:28 am Post #59 - August 31st, 2006, 11:28 am
    Mike G wrote:Riddlemay, I tend to agree with you about single issues per se, but I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of aldermen go down for a silly, lots-of-noise-little-real-impact piece of grandstanding like this, just to keep them from passing the next 50 encroachments on our lives that sound good and do next to nothing.

    I agree, that would feel good. And after we vote the one or two worst rascals out, we can eat their livers!
  • Post #60 - August 31st, 2006, 12:03 pm
    Post #60 - August 31st, 2006, 12:03 pm Post #60 - August 31st, 2006, 12:03 pm
    This isn't a partisan political rant, but I think that the aldermen were completely successful in achieving their aims, once again. By throwing things like the foie gras ban or cellphone ban or smoking ban out there so that they can keep the citizenry bickering a little bit on message boards and newspaper polls, etc., they achieve their primary goal - taking the focus off of how they rob us all blind, mismanage our tax dollars and generally enrich themselves, their families and friends at all of our expense.
    ...Pedro

Contact

About

Team

Advertize

Close

Chat

Articles

Guide

Events

more