riddlemay wrote: And after we vote the one or two worst rascals out, we can eat their livers!

Look out! They're thinking of proposing an ordinance to ban Chianti and fava beans!

(New ordinance corollary: lame duck liver ban)

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.

First of all, its legal for cops to use their cell phone... the ordinance allows it. even though they have radios, cops will often call back to their squad if there is a lot of info needing to be coneyed, its just easier. there are also plenty of people they need to talk to who aren't on the other end of their radio.

...enforcement is selective. the city is the only one who makes money off of the tickets, so state cops won't give anyone a ticket for violating the law(ordinance) if they pull someone over on the highway... really, i wish the state would just pass a law banning cell usage while driving... some of the worst driving on the 90/94/etc is a result of the driver using their cell phone.

YoYoPedro:

Thanks for the link to the vote.

Being from the 42nd, and being represented by Natarus, I just assumed that other wards had smarter aldermen.

On this issue, I stand corrected. Looks like all but two were just as obnoxious on this issue.

That being said, the voters still need to do something. First foie gras, then they want to tell me what sort of cooking oil to use -- what's next?

If anybody sees Burton Natarus or Joe Moore, do NOT tell them anything about chickens. If those two figured out how chickens are raised, every KFC in Chicago would be shut down.

riddlemay wrote:

DML wrote:In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus.

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.

it could be a principal thing. its very suprising to me that he went for the ban, since MANY restaurants in his ward served it (the top 2 or 3 that were on the political forefront of the issue are in his ward). but honestly, there are a lot of people willing to get rid of burton natarus, for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with foie gras. he's an old hag politician that is past his prime (like so many of Chicago's politicians). he's also very old school, and really only helps those who help him first. i'm still registered in his ward, maybe i could participate ...

btw, i found this blog entry interesting... http://skeetergsd.blogspot.com/2006/08/ ... ay-it.html

dddane wrote:really, i wish the state would just pass a law banning cell usage while driving... some of the worst driving on the 90/94/etc is a result of the driver using their cell phone.

Many studies have shown that it is not the holding of the handset that causes driving problems, it is the mental involvement of the driver with something other than driving. Whether it be a handsfree conversation, eating, dealing with a disobedient child, applying cosmetics, admiring oneself in the mirror, etc. If it were illegal to use a cellphone, even with a handsfree setup, it might help. But even if that were the case (which it will never be), accidents could occur as people pulled to the side of the road to make their calls and merged back onto the highway when they were completed, as safety instructors recommend.

Request for moderator decision - is banding together on the LTHForum to oppose the Foie Gras Ban a forbidden discussion of politics?

Oh wait, I am a moderator.

I think it is okay so long as it is about food too, and it is good-natured. Just let's not go down the path of discussing what things are appropriate to vote the bums in or out on, as tempting as that may be.

d

"Oh the brutality of it all! I swear I heard the sawgrass scream as they switched on the blender"

Any truth to the rumor that, having read that line, Moore and Natarus are going to ban consumption of sawgrass?

The interesting thing about the ban is that it assumes there are nice ways to raise and kill our food. Ultimately, me eating causes pain or destruction to something else. Unfortunate, but that is how life works.

I think next Ald. Moore should consider outlawing vegetables, due to the cruelty inflicted on them.

Consider this song from Tom Paxton (lyrics courtesy asklyrics.com):

Don't Slay That Potato
by Tom Paxton

How can you do it? It's heartless, it's cruel.
It's murder, cold-blooded, it's gross.
To slay a poor vegetable just for your stew
Or to serve with some cheese sauce on toast.
Have you no decency? Have you no shame?
Have you no conscience, you cad,
To rip that poor vegetable out of the earth
Away from its poor mom and dad?

CHORUS:
Oh, no, don't slay that potato!
Let us be merciful, please.
Don't boil it or fry it, don't even freeze-dry it.
Don't slice it or flake it.
For God's sake, don't bake it!
Don't shed the poor blood
Of this poor helpless spud.
That's the worst kind of thing you could do.
Oh, no, don't slay that potato
What never done nothing to you

Why not try picking on something your size
Instead of some carrot or bean?
The peas are all trembling there in their pod
Just because you're so vicious and mean.
How would you like to be grabbed by your hair
And ruthlessly yanked from your bed
And have done to you God knows what horrible things,
To be eaten with full-fiber bread?

(CHORUS)

It's no bed of roses, this vegetable life.
You're basically stuck in the mud.
You don't get around much. You don't see the sights
When you're a carrot or celery or spud.
You're helpless when somebody's flea-bitten dog
Takes a notion to pause for relief.
Then somebody picks you and cleans you and eats you
And causes you nothing but grief.

(CHORUS)

There ought to be some way of saving our skins.
They ought to be passing a law.
Just show anybody a cute little lamb
And they'll all stand around and go "Aw!"
Well, potatoes are ugly. Potatoes are plain.
We're wrinkled and lumpy to boot.
But give me a break, kid. Do you mean to say
That you'll eat us because we're not cute?

(CHORUS)

Even better is the Arrogant Worms, "Carrot Juice Is Murder," but don't let Joe Moore hear you sing it, he might get ideas:


Listen up brothers and sisters,
come hear my desperate tale.
I speak of our friends of nature,
trapped in the dirt like a jail.

Vegetables live in oppression,
served on our tables each night.
This killing of veggies is madness,
I say we take up the fight.

Salads are only for murderers,
coleslaw's a fascist regime.
Don't think that they don't have feelings,
just cause a radish can't scream.

Chorus:
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

I saw a man eating celery,
so I beat him black and blue.
If he ever touches a sprout again,
I'll bite him clean in two.

I'm a political prisoner,
trapped in a windowless cage.
Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips
by killing five men in a rage

I told the judge when he sentenced me,
This is my finest hour,
I'd kill those farmers again
just to save one more cauliflower

Chorus

How low as people do we dare to stoop,
Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes
Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gormet slob)
How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....

dicksond wrote:Request for moderator decision - is banding together on the LTHForum to oppose the Foie Gras Ban a forbidden discussion of politics?

Oh wait, I am a moderator.

I think it is okay so long as it is about food too, and it is good-natured. Just let's not go down the path of discussing what things are appropriate to vote the bums in or out on, as tempting as that may be.

Is it then also OK to mention that a gentleman named Chris Adams is running against Alderman No More in the 49th Ward?
Oh wait, I just did.
Can I also mention that he is toying with the idea of holding a Foie Gras fundraiser?
Oh wait, I just did.

riddlemay wrote: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.

Ah, but my alderman sucks at all of those as well! Matlak, 32nd ward. Finally updated his website (after a year of posting nothing) because there's an election coming up. Fancy that.

aschie30 wrote:

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!

Actually, I think it's a very good analogy. But as you said, it all comes down to enforcement.

leek wrote:

riddlemay wrote: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.

Ah, but my alderman sucks at all of those as well! Matlak, 32nd ward. Finally updated his website (after a year of posting nothing) because there's an election coming up. Fancy that.

You've got it easy, my friend.

Better to do and say nothing than to rave out about dogs taking over tables at outdoor cafes and blocking ward-residing chefs from serving their specialities.

Tru's alderman wants to tell Tru what it can serve. Unbelievable.

We should form a lobbying group: "Foie Gras Eating Diners Who Take Their Dogs To Outdoor Cafes United Against Meddling Aldercreatures."

If you want to help all those 42nd ward places [Tru, Les Nomades, Avenues, Ritz Carlton Dining Room, Naha, Kevin] serve what they want, check out:

www.reillyforchicago.com

DML wrote:We should form a lobbying group: "Foie Gras Eating Diners Who Take Their Dogs To Outdoor Cafes United Against Meddling Aldercreatures."

What you need is a catchy acronym. "Citizens Against Restricting Delectable Internal Organs." (CARDIO)

Does anyone know if there is anyway we can start a petition to veto this ordinance? Certainly, we have many users that we can pull together at LTHForum.com.

alysongrace wrote:Does anyone know if there is anyway we can start a petition to veto this ordinance? Certainly, we have many users that we can pull together at LTHForum.com.

The problem is that, with all but two aldermen voting in favor of the ordinance, a veto by the mayor would be only symbolic. And there is not a referendum right regarding Chicago municipal ordinances. Although civil disobedience is a method of defeasance that would ignore such concerns.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:The problem is that, with all but two aldermen voting in favor of the ordinance, a veto by the mayor would be only symbolic. And there is not a referendum right regarding Chicago municipal ordinances. Although civil disobedience is a method of defeasance that would ignore such concerns.

Really, I can't believe this!! There is nothing we can do. Then what was the previous post about election coming up in February? Why would it make a difference then, unless we manage somehow to elect new aldermen for the various districts.

alysongrace wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:The problem is that, with all but two aldermen voting in favor of the ordinance, a veto by the mayor would be only symbolic. And there is not a referendum right regarding Chicago municipal ordinances. Although civil disobedience is a method of defeasance that would ignore such concerns.

Really, I can't believe this!! There is nothing we can do. Then what was the previous post about election coming up in February? Why would it make a difference then, unless we manage somehow to elect new aldermen for the various districts.

Well, if the majority of aldermen found themselves about to be tossed out of office over the foie gras ban, one of them might choose to sponsor a revocation of the ordinance. But you are right, even if every alderman got voted out of office, the ordinance would stand unless and until the city council voted to repeal or amend it.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Well, if the majority of aldermen found themselves about to be tossed out of office over the foie gras ban, one of them might choose to sponsor a revocation of the ordinance. But you are right, even if every alderman got voted out of office, the ordinance would stand unless and until the city council voted to repeal or amend it.

At least the Mayor said that he is not exactly going to enforce it. Didn't the Chef just get a notice to stop serving foie gras? The Chef was not fine $500 for it, right?

That's right, the Department of Health indicated they planned to send the chef a warning letter, and nothing else. They added that if they got a second complaint, they would hit him with a fine. So, no; the city is not going out of its way to enforce this ordinance.

It would seem to me that the best route to getting this thing overturned isn't to somehow convince the city council to repeal the ban since, with a few exceptions, they barely expressed any interest in taking the time to discuss the ban in the first place. I get the distinct impression that most of them voted this thing through to shut Moore up and move on to other things. The last thing they want to do is go through it again.

Rather, it would seem to me that the best course of action would be to make them aware that more people are angry about this than they perhaps initially anticipated, and that it might be in their best interests to simply not defend the National Restaurant Association's challenge very vigorously. This way they get credit with anti-foie folk for passing the ban, the anger of those opposed to the ban is somewhat mitigated if the ban is overturned in court, and in terms of money and resources it's the path of least resistance.

This is admittedly something of a cynical take, but most likely to succeed, I think. They don't have to be convinced to take the time and political capital to overturn the ban... they just need to be convinced that they shouldn't fight very hard to try to make it stand up.

My acronym made the top of the LTH page!

That--is cool.

We could have an LTH sit-in at Joe Moore's office. It's right across the street from Gruppo di Amici, so people could take turns sitting and then go rest over a pizza or something...



(For extra impact, someone could walk up to Lost Eras on Howard and see if they have any duck, goose, or liver costumes.)

There's a good chance that this post will be pulled because it is somewhat political, but I wanted to make sure everyone here knows that we are not alone. The business community is just as upset about Ald Moore and his "legislation" as we are. I just received this from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce wrote:To the business community,

I encourage you to attend an event for the candidate to beat the man who brought us the foie gras and Big Box legislation. Chris Adams is running for Alderman in the 49th Ward against Joe Moore. As you can appreciate, these issues are much bigger than the 49th Ward. Moore continues to bring us legislation that significantly and negatively affects the businesses and people of Chicago. Moore is everybody's problem.


With your help, Chris can beat Moore. Chris has key support in the 49th Ward. He has a strong political organization and is fortunate to have advisors and a team that bring deep and wide campaign and grassroots experience. He is a 22-year journalist and newspaper editor who has worked with city councils, mayors’ offices, police departments and the like. He has proven senior management and business experience solving problems and delivering results. (See more about Chris and his issues at www.adamsforalderman.com.)


The event is Thursday, Sept. 14, at Brasserie JO located at 59 W. Hubbard from 5:30-7:30 p.m. This $250 per ticket event will make a big difference in advancing Chris’ important campaign. To register, please contact the Adams for Alderman office at 773-465-ADAMS (2326), matt@adamsforalderman.com or mail/email the attached form by Sept. 12. Checks can be made out to “Friends of Chris Adams” and sent to 1549 W. Touhy Ave., Chicago, IL 60626. After Sept. 12, please register by phone or email and bring your check with you to the event. You also can pay by credit card online at www.adamsforalderman by choosing the "contribute" option.


If you can’t make this event, you can still make a statement and support a critical cause by sending a check of any amount to the Friends of Chris Adams.

stevez wrote:
The event is Thursday, Sept. 14, at Brasserie JO located at 59 W. Hubbard from 5:30-7:30 p.m. This $250 per ticket event will make a big difference in advancing Chris’ important campaign.

The bigger question, will foie gras be on the menu? I would hope that Chef Jean would take that opportunity to serve it. Can you imagine the foie gras police swooping in on a political fundraiser to make a bust!

Brasserie Jo and Everest.

How could I have forgotten those places in my list of 42nd ward residents screwed over by Natarus and Moore?

I am going to contact my friends in the Brendan Reilly Campaign (42nd) to see if we can form a CARDIO sub-committee. We may not get much campaigning done, but the meetings will feature great menus.

YoYoPedro wrote:
Many studies have shown that it is not the holding of the handset that causes driving problems, it is the mental involvement of the driver with something other than driving. Whether it be a handsfree conversation, eating, dealing with a disobedient child, applying cosmetics, admiring oneself in the mirror, etc. If it were illegal to use a cellphone, even with a handsfree setup, it might help. But even if that were the case (which it will never be), accidents could occur as people pulled to the side of the road to make their calls and merged back onto the highway when they were completed, as safety instructors recommend.

Yes, both evidence and sound cognitive science theory suggests it is the cognitive and attentional resources that are particularly taxed by cellphone use. That's what makes it fundamentally different from Froie gras. Banning ALL cell phone use while driving prevents behaviors known and verified to significantly increase serious harm to other persons, eating fois gras does not. BTW: there's no empirical nor sound theoretical reason to think eating or repremanding children in the car have the same level of cognitive impact as a conversation with someone far away from the context in which one needs to attend.
Also, it is already illegal to pull over on the highway except for a serious emergency. So, if cells phones were banned, it would not increase merging accidents.

Basically, cell phone use while driving is much like DUI, and not at all like Foie Gras. But your right that cell phone use while driving will not be banned outright, because there are too many wealthy and politically powerful people who have come to rely on it.

griffin wrote:BTW: there's no empirical nor sound theoretical reason to think eating or repremanding children in the car have the same level of cognitive impact as a conversation with someone far away from the context in which one needs to attend.

You must have missed this link that an earlier poster posted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5262210.stm

Also, it is already illegal to pull over on the highway except for a serious emergency. So, if cells phones were banned, it would not increase merging accidents.

I wasn't aware that it was illegal, and can't say that I believe it. Cellphone manufacturers have been saying for years that users should pull over to make calls.

Basically, cell phone use while driving is much like DUI, and not at all like Foie Gras. But your right that cell phone use while driving will not be banned outright, because there are too many wealthy and politically powerful people who have come to rely on it.

I would say that it is more likely that the reason that ALL cell phone use while driving will never be banned outright is because the great unwashed masses have come to rely on it, as opposed to the fact that too many wealthy and politically powerful people have come to rely on it.

But what does this have to do with foie gras?

YoYoPedro wrote:I wasn't aware that it was illegal, and can't say that I believe it. Cellphone manufaturers have been saying for years that users should pull over to make calls.

I actually got a ticket for doing this very thing in some podunk suburb once. When I went to court the judge literally laughed the case out of court.

True story: Sweets and Savories is still openly and blatantly serving foie gras. How do I know? I did a demo this afternoon at the Botanic Garden with Chef Richards and his jovial assistant/publicist/partner Mark, and they told me so - and also that they were terribly disappointed that they didn't get the first citation for breaking this law!

I think I have a date for a foieburger this week....