Chicagoist: Review: The Encore Outlaw Dinner

Bryan Pease

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:58:13 -0600

The opponents of the "foie gras" ban are a vocal minority who are resistant to any form of social change. Recent Zogby polls found that 80% of Americans and 79% of Illinois residents believe foie gras should be banned. Other forms of animal cruelty and torture are already banned, and this is no different. I have been inside both major foie gras farms in the U.S. and several in France, and the methods are always the same: shoving large metal pipes down ducks' throats to forcibly enlarge their livers to 10 times their natural size. The purpose of government should be to protect the weak and easily exploited, including animals tortured for a frivolous delicacy. This particular resolution passed 48 to one, and these are local legislators who live in and are in touch with their communities, so complaining about the heavy hand of government telling people what to eat is totally misplaced. I commend Alderman Joe Moore for having the courage and integrity to stand up to the small but rabid lynch mob that believes torturing animals is acceptable in a civilized society. Please see www.stopforcefeeding.com for pictures and video I have personally taken inside foie gras farms.

mk

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:59:48 -0600

Tramonto is poo-poo on the f.g., so says the NY Times today. It said nothing about whether he supported the ban, and neither did I. I'm sure there are some rational people who don't like the stuff, but who at the same time don't think it should be banned for legal/constitutional reasons (although, since you're asking for sources from me, Erin, I might ask for yours too). I got no serious beef (or fattened liver) with those peeps, just as long as they don't tell lies about how only malnourished vegans support the ban.

ducky

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:15:48 -0600

i am against eating foie gras because i think it's inhumane. i don't necessarily support the ban, but i do wonder why people are getting so f*ing hystrionic about it. is it really a constitutional issue? really? i'd prefer if people stopped eating it of their own accord - this ban seems to be popularizing by giving it cache, which is unfortunate. but is the ban really that big of a deal? i certainly agree that there are much bigger priorities. it would be great if the city council got on them. maybe we can somehow make that happen. i hope. but if the foie gras ban is a bad law it can be repealed, right? in the meantime, is it going to have a negative effect on poor children? is it going to hurt the uninsured to ban foie gras? i guess i just don't get why people are apoplectic about this food, which very few people ever taste, being banned. i would also like to go on the record as stating that they should repeal the ban on absinthe - the repeal of which would in fact do me some good.

Chuck

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:02:07 -0600

And if I wanted to be a politician, mk, I would definitely have pointed that error out sooner regarding Tramonto.

erin

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:43:29 -0600

mk, Rick Tramonto is against the ban. He thinks it's a constitutional issue and has publicly wondered where the line is drawn if foie gras is banned.

ross

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:30:45 -0600

Amen to ReverendSlappy, right on. It's time to get rid of all those wackido Alderman we have in Chicago. Too many of them sitting around with nothing productive to offer. Ald. Moore has no business representing any of Chicago or anyone. I hope he puts this damn law on his grave stone as his great achievement in society.

navin

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:24:57 -0600

ReverendSlappy you're going to have to yell a hell of a lot louder than that if you expect us to be able to hear you from all the way up in that ivory tower. I'm on my high horse and I still can't hear you.

ReverendSlappy

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:55:33 -0600

The foie gras ban makes me absolutely livid. You can spare me the blather about the poor, poor geese and the reactionary pseudo-libertarian propaganda about government "overreaching". The foie gras ban exists thanks to two types of people: 1. The ideallogically impotent, who unfortunately don't have matchingly weak egos. 2. In-your-face, unabashed classists. Today, right now while you're reading this, there are children in this city receiving sub-par educations and living lives surrounded by poverty and crime. Single parents are struggling to raise their families while subsisting on low wages. Men and women from Chicago are fighting and dying in two wars halfway around the world. Ghost payrollers are wasting precious tax dollars that could and should be used to help improve the lives of all the citizens of this city. And today, a law has taken effect that intends to protect the lives and well-being of geese. Fucking GEESE. And it will have PRECISELY ZERO effect on the intended benefactors (the poor, poor geese)! I mean are you fucking kidding me?!? This is what we pay our tax dollars for? To all of you who support or helped pass this stupid, silly, and ultimately ineffectual law: I envy you. I wish that I too could posess the utter lack of integrity, wit, and strength in conviction that apparently gives you no perspective on the real problems we face, while still posessing the amazing sense of self-righteousness that you display in legally forcing your delusional morals on the rest of us. I don't know how you do it. Were I a coward and a fool, I think I'd only be able keep my damned mouth shut. And yet I don't know how you can be so incredibly dishonest: If you cared one whit about animals' well-being... if you gave half a damn about protecting their lives, you wouldn't start with foie gras. You'd go after chickens, or cows, or pigs. But no, you couldn't do that. Perhaps that's because you feel almost as much concern for the folks who subsist on those animals as you do for the sacred geese? Nah. I think it's because you're too weak, too shallow, too dim, and too cowardly to really stand up for what you claim to believe in and instead go after only the easiest of targets: The upper-class folks who are supposedly the only diners who enjoy foie gras. I mean, "They're rich, so fuck 'em," right? You're like half of a Robin Hood: "Steal from the rich and... well, benefit nobody." Idiots. You self-important, deluded, arrogant, short-sighted, inept, weak-minded idiots. You've accomplished absolutely nothing -- other than keeping a few people from enjoying a dish they choose to eat, and stroking your own egos. If you're keeping score at home, here's the breakdown: -Children receiving poor education: Thousands. -Children living in poverty: Thousands. -Single parents struggling to get by: Thousands. -Soldiers dead or dying in foreign wars: Thousands. -Money spent on ghost payrollers: Millions. -Laws enacted today to deal with any of those issues: Zero. -Laws enacted to protect geese: One. -Geese actually protected by that law: Zero. Thanks a lot, fois gras banners. You and your silly law are a sad, pitiful commentary on our priorities as a society. Not only did you help enact a law that deals with the most trite and insignificant issue possible -- in the face of literally hundreds of others of real gravity. You also made it a law that doesn't do anything. Job well done.

mk

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:11:43 -0600

Dude, you said... "only the most hardcore, malnourished vegans think the ban is a good thing." I pointed out that that is BS, and that it’s more like 20% who agree with the ban. (That doesn’t include people who probably disagree with eating foie gras, but who don’t want a ban.) Now you're deflecting my criticism by simply pointing out that 20% isn't a majority? You should work in politics or something. You have a gift. Erin, the surveys were on some news reports I saw (don’t recall the channels), but Chicago Trib has a survey with almost the same results. I don't have a link, but it's on their website. Also, some pretty non-malnourished, non-vegan chefs in Chicago are also poo-poo on foie gras (Trotter and Tramonto). Anyway, my point is that Chuck's assessment of the situation is way more tilted than the reality. There are plenty of us carnis emerging that aren't willing maximize the pleasure of our palates to the total exclusion of the interests of the animals we are eating, and some of us think you shouldn’t do that either. We aren’t the majority, but let’s not paint us as the crackpots that Chuck would like to make you think we are.

mabel

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:04:15 -0600

Something constructive like improving labor laws, demanding humane forms of killing for your dinner table and making sure trade is not only free but fair? I think that would be pretty constructive. If we don't demand better practices, how can we really do anything constructive? Otherwise, isn't it all just gloss? As I get older, I worry about losing my capacity to care about others and that includes animals. Hamburgers aren't going anywhere. Please.

james

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:43:32 -0600

i saw that 'chicago tonight' last night as well, and i tell ya, i have never ever agreed with chris robling before, but he absolutely skewered ald. moore. why isn't moore concentrating on kids in his ward who can't read at their grade level? what about crime? what about working to connect people with jobs instead of outlawing food and certain stores? I think robling made the point that coffee is harvested by more or less slave labor throughout the world -- are we going to ban coffee in chicago until the coffeemakers improve their labor practices? And what's next? veal, i'd imagine. Then what? hamburgers? Why not, it's not as if cows, whteher they are producing meat or milk, have a comfortable life. I read an article in the Dark One over the weekend about how cows that give 'organic' milk really don't get to roam around the farms they are on like people would want to believe -- they're stuck in barns, stepping in their own poop, basically living as milking machines -- should we ban 'organic' milk then? Oh, let's try it. God forbid alds. moore and the rest of them should actually try to do something constructive.

Chuck

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:55:05 -0600

Twenty percent of people polled may have supported the ban, but that sure as hell ain't a majority, is it? And, compared to the genuine problems this city faces, it is overreaching, not a wild generalization. Not only is it overreaching, it's insulting.

Navin

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:35:44 -0600

$140 per person with wine pairings Wow, Fight the Power, Outlaws. Silly, hypocritical law...silly, hypocritical backlash. Seriously, Stupid law, stupid Foie Gras eaters. Enjoy your "Celebration of life" Maybe they'd have paid more if the chef jammed a tube down their throats and pumped the whole meal into their stomachs in a few seconds. - A meat eater

Erin

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:08:01 -0600

Who sponsored the surveys, mk? Can you post to them for us? I'm not being challenging - I just wasn't aware of any that were done. Thanks!

Joel

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:07:10 -0600

$140 per person with wine pairings Wow, Fight the Power, Outlaws. Silly, hypocritical law...silly, hypocritical backlash.

Julene

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:05:37 -0600

Pop rocks are what should be banned.

mk

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:59:46 -0600

Er, the surveys I've seen cited said something like 20 percent supported the ban. Certainly 20 percent of the population is not crackhead vegans. Those of us who are not crackheads are still slowly coming to the realization that we perhaps shouldn't torture what we eat. Anyway, back to your wild generalizations of how everyone thought this was overreaching... where exactly are you getting that?

mike

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:53:23 -0600

The foie gras chef considers the dinner "a celebration of life; the purest act of generosity and love"--I like that, and moreover, I see what he means! Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/f23zd

ross

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:44:14 -0600

Next up ban on Speedo's on Oak Street Beach. We need to get rid of these Alderman and get some people in there that actually do something. Like working on fixing the CTA problems or crime.