The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
Hot Doug's is the proud recipient of the city's first Foie Gras ticket. Doug Sohn, who puts the Doug in Hot Doug's, has been taunting the hell out of city officials since the ban went into effect. Sohn framed the warning letter he received from the city and placed it on his counter.
Coming half a year after the ordinance was passed, the Chicago Health Department inspector went to Hot Doug's on Friday morning, issued a citation and confiscated the foie gras. It's probably sitting next to that Naperville cocaine that was also confiscated recently.
As one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine, it is pretty odd that a hot dog stand received the first citation. There are countless restaurants in the city that have essentially ignored the ban. The irony doesn't stop there; confiscating the foie gras, the inspector undoubtedly crossed many a sketchy ass hot dogs. The irony doesn't stop there; the hot dog, which could be considered by some as having sketchy ingredients, can in many cases involve just as much inhumane treatment as the making of Foie Gras. Perhaps that will be what the city tells us we can’t eat next. The self proclaimed “Sausage Superstore and Encased Meat Emporium" has removed all Foie Gras related items from the menu and there is no word on whether it will make it on there again.
Hot Doug's will be closed starting on Monday while Doug is vacationing in France and will not reopen until March 5. The court hearing for the citation is March 29.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"The irony doesn't stop there, confiscating the foie gras, the inspector undoubtedly crossed many a sketchy ass hot dogs. "
Are you implying that Doug's food is unsanitary, or that hot dogs are simply gross? If it's the former, that's possible libel; if the latter, then you're just plain wrong.
Not only that, it just doesn't make any damn sense.
Yeah... You might want to do a re-write on that sentence. When I read it, I though you were implying that Hot Doug's food is somehow "sketchy" which is *way* off base.
I went to a meat packing plant with my cousin many years ago, the stuff they put in a hot dog is the saddest parts. Why would Daley send the goons out to this little business? Tell Doug put a little more money in the local alderman's pocket and all will go better.
Am I the only one to see a correlation between the pieces-parts that go into sausage and the fatted goose liver? It's good of Doug to fall on his sword so that people like the venerable Mr. Trotter can peddle their foie gras openly and without fear.
I was amused but saddened by the City Council's passage of the ban. But then it was just an abstraction. Now I'm thoroughly disgusted (and somewhat embarrased) by a city whose so-called leaders could better be directing its limited resources to far more pressing problems of crime, education, and the many other things we'd prefer our government to involve itself in. If Doug Sohn's crime is a misdemeanor, theirs is a felony.
You MUST eat at Hot Doug's! It is far from an ordinary hot dog joint. He features gourmet ingredients (Foie Gras on a hot dog?!??)
Here are a few non-contraband examples from this week's menu:
- Gyros Sausage with Creme Fraiche Tzatziki, Kalamata Olives and Sun-Dried Tomato Feta Cheese
- Catalonian Pork Sausage with Saffron Rouille and 12-Month Sheep's Milk Manchego Cheese
"Sketchy" is the last word I think of when I eat there.
k, I am not implying Hot Doug's food is unsanitary. But, yes hot dogs are gross. If you want to eat them, go ahead.
You're fired.
I think I'll have lunch at Doug's Mar 9.
mysteriously unspecified meat and meat fat, cereal fillers, preservatives, binders... high contents of sodium, nitrate, fat, and dyes... synthetic collagen casings.. another one of the wonderful products available to us through the magic of factory farming. mmmm. our elected representatives are supposed to dictate to us what is safe for consumption, not impose a ridiculous ban on a delicacy thats production is no more cruel than the conditions of the animals in the mass-production farms of the poultry, pork and beef industries. timmy, go eat a hot dog before they ban that too.
Look, Floridaist, you may not have noticed in your short stint here in the Windy City but the hot dog is rather revered in this town, and you've just taken a pot shot at one of the people most passionate about them -- the guy makes his own sausage, for chrissakes.
Where is the irony then, exactly, if you merely meant that your personal opinion is that hot dogs are gross (an opinion you are certainly entitled to)? What you're implying is that it's humorous that the inspector went straight for the foie gras and ignored the "sketchy ass hot dogs" -- i.e., in violation of health code -- he/she passed along the way. Since Mr. Sohn will be downtown on March 9th, anyway, perhaps he should wander over and file a libel suit...
Look, Floridaist, you may not have noticed in your short stint here in the Windy City but the hot dog is rather revered in this town, and you've just taken a pot shot at one of the people most passionate about them -- the guy makes his own sausage, for chrissakes.
Where is the irony then, exactly, if you merely meant that your personal opinion is that hot dogs are gross (an opinion you are certainly entitled to)? What you're implying is that it's humorous that the inspector went straight for the foie gras and ignored the "sketchy ass hot dogs" -- i.e., in violation of health code -- he/she passed along the way. Since Mr. Sohn will be downtown on March 9th, anyway, perhaps he should wander over and file a libel suit...
Prescott, I implied that the Foie Gras ban is ridiculous. I can personally not like hot dogs, but still feel Mr. Sohn should be able to serve whatever he wants.
That may be what you were *trying* to imply, but that's not at all how it reads. For instance, what does the moniker "The Sausage Superstore" have to do with the ridiculousness of the ban? Also, hot dogs are not banned, so your statement is not ironic in the way you are trying to spin it. If they had encountered say, several bottles of absinthe, that might have worked.
But all that aside, you do realize that "sketchy" doesn't mean gross, but rather "questionable" or "iffy"? Which, call me crazy, implies that his dogs are unsanitary. I guess we'll have to let the judge decide.
I agree with Prescott... maybe you belong to the Alanis Morisette school of irony. Using the term "sketchy ass hot dogs" absolutely implies that you are calling into question the quality of the food at Hot Doug's. You don't have to be a hot dog-lover to believe in supporting independent, small businesses. Maybe you should check out the subjects of your articles before passing judgment... which in this case had nothing to do with the story at hand.
timmy,
your use of the english language is sketchy.
I second that emotion, Margaret and prescott.
The `sketchy` comment is definitely in need of a re-write. Hot Doug`s is a one-of-a-kind, uniquely Chicago establishment, if anything for the amount of creativity and effort Doug Sohn puts into his menu. (He`s also a really good guy.) If you wanna call hot dogs in general `gross,` that`s your opinion. However, `sketchy` means `defective` or `damaged`, and that`s totally out-of-line. Check your Roget`s.
timmy,
your use of the english language is sketchy.
Chicagoist, I think less of you for putting "Hot Doug's" and "Sketchy" in the same sentence. The stuff on their Special's menu rivals anything that you'll find on Lake Street. This article's irony truly doesn't stop there.
Timmy,
You are ignorant.
Doug's hearing is March 29, not March 9
Doug's hearing is March 29, not March 9.
ok, I'll go for lunch on the 29th as well. not like two weeks ever goes by for me without duck fries anyway.
Hot dogs are a notoriously sketchy food, and just because someone puts "gourmet" (read: exploding liver) ingredients on top of one, it doesn't mean it's not still a collection of entrails.
You can insult a Chicagoan's mom, and they won't blink an eye, but fuck with their hot dogs, and people lose their shit.
"You can insult a Chicagoan's mom, and they won't blink an eye, but fuck with their hot dogs, and people lose their shit."
Put ketchup on there and I'll break your fucking legs.
Sarah and Timmy,
Regardless of how you feel about hot dogs, your story is so clumsily written that you are saying the food is "damaged" or "defective". If you were saying that you hate hot dogs, that's fine. Just clearly write it that way. But "sketchy" in Merriam Webster and Roget's both mean "questionable" or "defective". (Go to m-w.com or thesaurus.com) The sentence reads that the health inspector saw "defective" ass hot dogs.
It's poorly written in a way that sounds like the food is unsanitary. Which is libelous and out of line. Plus, Doug Sohn is a bit of a local celebrity and all around friendly shop owner, which makes the whole thing even more upsetting to people who frequent his place.
You're calling his food damaged. Not saying you think hot dogs are gross.
This reaction you're getting is because Timmy couldn't be bothered to pick up a thesaurus before he wrote this story.
why don't they just make them out of Chicken Liver?
Sarah and Timmy,
Regardless of how you feel about hot dogs, your story is so clumsily written that you are saying the food is "damaged" or "defective". If you were saying that you hate hot dogs, that's fine. Just clearly write it that way. But "sketchy" in Merriam Webster and Roget's both mean "questionable" or "defective". (Go to m-w.com or thesaurus.com) The sentence reads that the health inspector saw "defective" ass hot dogs.
It's poorly written in a way that sounds like the food is unsanitary. Which is libelous and out of line. Plus, Doug Sohn is a bit of a local celebrity and all around friendly shop owner, which makes the whole thing even more upsetting to people who frequent his place.
You're calling his food damaged. Not saying you think hot dogs are gross.
This reaction you're getting is because Timmy couldn't be bothered to pick up a thesaurus before he wrote this story.
Sarah and Timmy,
Regardless of how you feel about hot dogs, your story is so clumsily written that you are saying the food is "damaged" or "defective". If you were saying that you hate hot dogs, that's fine. Just clearly write it that way. But "sketchy" in Merriam Webster and Roget's both mean "questionable" or "defective". (Go to m-w.com or thesaurus.com) The sentence reads that the health inspector saw "defective" ass hot dogs.
It's poorly written in a way that sounds like the food is unsanitary. Which is libelous and out of line. Plus, Doug Sohn is a bit of a local celebrity and all around friendly shop owner, which makes the whole thing even more upsetting to people who frequent his place.
You're calling his food damaged. Not saying you think hot dogs are gross.
This reaction you're getting is because Timmy couldn't be bothered to pick up a thesaurus before he wrote this story.
Sarah and Timmy,
Regardless of how you feel about hot dogs, your story is so clumsily written that you are saying the food is "damaged" or "defective". If you were saying that you hate hot dogs, that's fine. Just clearly write it that way. But "sketchy" in Merriam Webster and Roget's both mean "questionable" or "defective". (Look it up.) The sentence reads that the health inspector saw "defective" ass hot dogs.
It's poorly written in a way that sounds like the food is unsanitary. Which is libelous and out of line. Plus, Doug Sohn is a bit of a local celebrity and all around friendly shop owner, which makes the whole thing even more upsetting to people who frequent his place.
You're calling his food damaged. Not saying you think hot dogs are gross.
This reaction you're getting is because Timmy couldn't be bothered to pick up a thesaurus before he wrote this story.
Chicagoist, with all the $ you make from those darn ads on the page, can you buy a few journalism books for your writers? Geeez, this 101 level stuff.
I mean, do you post retractions? Cause this deserves one.
1. Hot Dougs rules
2. The ban is stupid
3. Foie Gras = gross, people would eat goose shit if it had a klassy french name.
I'm not retracting anything, I said exactly what I wanted to say and people commented.
Dan, all hot dogs are sketchy. That sentence actually came from a conversation I had a few weeks ago. A friend and I got hot dogs and I asked, "what exactly are hot dogs made of?" They said, "I don't know," and I replied, "they are pretty sketchy."
Not that everyone else's comments didn't deserve a reply, but Dan's showed up 4 times. (Not his fault, I was getting a server error as well.)
Hot dogs are indeed very sketchy ... and very delicious. As long as I don't think of the sketchiness that goes into creating them.
Great publicity for Hot Doug's to be sure. Publicly flaunting a silly law and then riding the wave of out cry when the inevitable crackdown happens. Poor Doug. Now what kind of sausage can he sell to yuppy fucks for $8?
For those that do feel that hot dogs are "sketchy," Hot Doug's has a mean veggie dog and veggie corn dog and imo, it's worth the trip just for the fries. Plus, Doug has got to be one of the nicest restaurant owners in the city.
First: The court date listed has been corrected, and should show up soon.
Second: After reading the particular sentence in question, the only thing Timmy is guilty of here is not having sarcasm/irreverence/"snark" translate well to the page. Those of us who took the time to not fly off the handle after reading that sentence and comprehend what Timmy wrote understood that he was trying to point out the irony of tagging the foie gras, when there are FDA-allowable standards for miscellaneous ingredients (George Carlin called them "rodent hairs, roach droppings, bug parts") in cased meats. It certainly isn't an indictment of the sanitary conditions of Hot Doug's kitchen or prep areas. At least, it doesn't read as such.
In short, we all could be better served with some reading comprehension. And some of you need a good cup of coffee in the morning, if not a wholesale reality check, if you're getting twisted in knots about this.
Thanks for reading and taking the time out to respond, nonetheless.
The poorly-written article also implies that Doug is taking his vacation BECAUSE of the fine. That is not true. He takes long breaks regularly, and he had been publicizing this vacation well before the fine was doled out.
Overall, this is just a very poorly-written piece. While I don't think Chicagoist should be held to the standards of the New York Times, this is personal blog-level material.
This Doug guy should teach marketing at the UofC he has perfected the art of selling hot dogs to the jaded hipster. $250 well spent Doug!
I could barely make it through this post once, now I'm expected to re-read it over and over until I comprehend it? That's the benchmark of good writing?
As Timmy is entitled to his opinion of hot dogs, I'm entitled to my opinion of his writing. Chuck, it's not a matter of poor reading comprehension or flying off the handle. The fact is several educated people managed to interpret his use of the word "sketchy" in the same manner. It's good to defend your writer, but not by being condescending to your readers.
Chuck:
While the intent may have been sarcasm, and you may not read it as potentially indicting Hot Doug's sanitary conditions, the sentence in question fails at its basic goal of communication--I, too, read it as an insult to Hot Doug's as a retaurant, rather than a snarky comment on hot dogs in general. Maybe if the following sentence had refered to the FDA-allowed "miscellaneous ingredients" it would have actually made sense.
Not to defend the vehemence of some of the other commenters, but, given that several people have read this sentence the same way, perhaps it is YOU and Timmy who are misreading it.
The whole post reads like a vegetarian reviewing Morton's--if Timmy has somthing like that informing his opinion of Hot Doug's, maybe it should have been mentioned in the post. Or does everyone at Chigaoist have an axe to grind w/r/t encased meats or Doug Sohn?
This is not a restaurant review, and if we had to provide a disclaimer stating our like or dislike for encased animal remnants every time the term "hot dog" was mentioned on this blog, we'd never get anything done. The meat was insulted, not the restaurant. And frankly, I don't hear any hot dogs crying about it.
Look at Timmy's idiotic response to criticism:
Dan, all hot dogs are sketchy. That sentence actually came from a conversation I had a few weeks ago. A friend and I got hot dogs and I asked, "what exactly are hot dogs made of?" They said, "I don't know," and I replied, "they are pretty sketchy."
Timmy's authoritative source for his mis-placed use of "sketchy": himself!
Its clear that this kid is a bit slow and doesn't understand the colloquial meaning of the word, which he clearly invoked.
Chuck, in your defense of Timmy's post, you claim:
there are FDA-allowable standards for miscellaneous ingredients (George Carlin called them "rodent hairs, roach droppings, bug parts") in cased meats.
Please provide some evidence--other than from a comedian-- for this claim.
Since you seem to be an expert about FDA regulations, please point to the particular section where this is allowed.
Margaret, several educated people are a little too defensive of hot dogs. That being said, if everyone agreed on everything it'd be quite the boring world.
I have eaten enough hot dogs Libel? to form an opinion, it doesn't even mean I don't eat them now. I would respond further, but I'm off to a PETA rally.
OK, you're just fucking with us now, right? The majority of the comments have been in defense of Doug Sohn and Hot Doug's, not hot dogs -- talk about lack of reading comprehension!
If you were able to turn a phrase and had actually said something like, "ironic that Chicago banned foie gras and not sketchy-ass hot dogs," you probably would have received a few playful jabs and this would be done. The lack of any kind of acknowledgment that your words maybe could be read the wrong way when NOT ONE person outside of Chicagoist staff has come to your defense is quite fascinating.
Prescott, I don't feel I need to make some grand acknowledgment, it's pretty obvious that my words were read the wrong way by some. However, there is the propensity of a lot of readers to get bent out of shape about anything and everything. Every blog is like that, and I am occasionally guilty of it myself. This, though, is the reason for my lack of remorse.
Sorry about the quadruple posting, but you're right >> I was getting a bunch of server errors.
I think the reason folks are getting upset is that the fact that you don't see anything wrong with the post. Anyone who doesn't read below the jump misses your explanation or clarification or whatever you want to call it.
And the story reads like you're calling Hot Doug's hot dogs "tainted".
There is no clear deliniation between hot dogs in general or Hot Doug's hot dogs, and it reads like only HIS hot dogs are "sketchy" (which, I repeat, means "damaged" or "defective").
I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I don't see this as a personal vendetta. I think that you should just change the sentence. Clarify it in the post. No harm done.
As it stands, your reference for word "sketchy" is from a conversation off-site, from a couple of weeks ago, that is not mentioned in your article. Not from a dictionary or thesaurus that would give you a different, and more inflammatory definition.
"I have eaten enough hot dogs Libel? to form an opinion, "
What the hell does this even mean?
You're one of those ketchup-hotdoggers, aren't you.
Come on, the implication clearly is that Hot Doug's hot dogs are sketchy, not that hot dogs are sketchy as such. If you didn't mean that, then you shouldn't have written it. Doug makes much of his own sausage; you can ask him yourself what's in them, I'm sure he'd be glad to tell you.
I'm a vegetarian and I eat at Hot Doug's every opportunity I can get. Where else can you get a vegan Chicago-style dog(For *$2.50*, haters)? So maybe I'll see you there after that PETA rally, son.
The snark would work better if it was The Wiener's Circle - but it's Hot Doug's. This is a place that takes their food seriously.
It's a great Chicago tradition to enjoy food that is common, but can be extraordinary. Encased meats, See Hot Doug's. Tacos, see Frontera.
The writer is entitled to every opinion possible about hot dogs, but for a blog that names itself 'Chicagoist', the above article just makes him look like a transplant.
I enjoy that Timmy has taken up that standard blogger defense--"I won't apologise/correct the entry/admit my mistake because you all have annoyed me". Wonderful sentiment, no? It is, unfortunately, all too familiar in our current political environment.
People who argue on blogs are sketchy.
Amy, if you look at the Chicagoist bios, timmy, like at least 12 of his 21 colleagues is a "transplant" (your words) or "carpetbagger" (my word). No wonder he has no respect for the "Hog Butcher of the World." No wonder that Chicagoist is always writing about soccer, which no native Chicagoan cares about, instead of reporting breaking news like Ron Rivera's contract not being renewed.
Sohn can be smug, and I often eat veggie dishes, but timmy had absolutely no reason or rationale to "put down" Hot Dougs and its products. And timmy's colleagues attempt to defend timmy just fall flat.
I myself believe the City was in the right to ban foie gras, due to the unreasonable cruelty that goes into making it. Sohn and the other pro- foie gras restauranteurs are correct in that the city theoretically shouldn't be dictating menus to restauranteurs, but they should have had the common sense in the first place to have removed it from the menus when it became the means in which foie gras is procured becamse general knowledge.
Just need to say this.
Timmy -
The meaning of the word `sketchy`doesn`t mean what you think it means. Please check it on thesaurus.com.
The only way that the `irony` you point out would exist (using the dictionary form of `irony`), is if the health inspector confiscated foie gras, and left something illegal (which implies that the hot dogs are tainted).
In the original post, you don`t make any distinction between hot dogs in general, and Hot Doug`s hot dogs.
I usually am not this insistent on boards like this, but this crosses a line from being a snarky, clumsily-written post to being really, really irresponsible.
I usually am not this insistent on boards like this, but this crosses a line from being a snarky, clumsily-written post to being really, really irresponsible.
Then you have Chuck--a site editor-- acting as an apologist passing an urban legend about hot dogs off as factual in defending this guy's poor writing!
Pretty amateurish all around.
Covered under Chapter IV, section 406 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, under "tolerances for poisonous ingredients in food". This section also covers "deleterious" ingredients.
Then there's this Time article from 1972. A bit before most of our time to be certain, but still relevant.
Now be a good boy, Murrow. Good night, good luck, and don't forget to restore the internet blocker on Mommy and Daddy's computer before you go to sleep.
Chapter IV, section 406 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
Nice try Charlie. Section 406 simply gives the HHS Secretary the ability to determine limits for certain forbidden substances that cannot be avoided in the production of a particular food.
These substances are clearly laid out in Sec. 402.
Please, dear Matlock, try again. If the HHS Secretary has issued these regulations you speak of, you need to provide evidence rather than giving an ill-informed link to the authorizing statute.
As for the Time article--aside from the fact that it was written over 30 years ago, it certainly is not "still relevant" to your point that there are "FDA-standards" allowing "rodent hairs, roach droppings, bug parts" in hot dogs. The only discussion of Federal guidelines involved offal.
Chapter IV, section 406 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
Nice try Charlie. Section 406 simply gives the HHS Secretary the ability to determine limits for certain forbidden substances that cannot be avoided in the production of a particular food.
These substances are clearly laid out in Sec. 402.
Please, dear Matlock, try again. If the HHS Secretary has issued these regulations you speak of, you need to provide evidence rather than giving an ill-informed link to the authorizing statute.
As for the Time article--aside from the fact that it was written over 30 years ago, it certainly is not "still relevant" to your point that there are "FDA-standards" allowing "rodent hairs, roach droppings, bug parts" in hot dogs. The only discussion of Federal guidelines involved offal.
The irony doesn't stop there; confiscating the foie gras, the inspector undoubtedly crossed many a sketchy-ass hot dog.
This sentence really does make it sound like unsanitary/rat-hair tainted sausages were encountered during the Hot Doug's trip.
Hot Doug's grinds up their own meat and fatback and spices and such to make sausage. Of any hot dog stand, they're probably the least "sketchy", so I can understand why people who know this might be upset. I think they might be a little too upset, admittedly, but I understand it.
Also, the statement on the closing did make it sound like they were shutting the joint down for the violations in that context.
So Chuck, Timmy--you and me and Hot Doug's? Maybe mid-day on the 10th?
I never said I was avoiding the place.
And if they're serving foie gras, it's a date. We'll promise to speak clearly.
Libel?
You little Matlocks really need to review your mass comm law.
Poor writing perhaps, but hardly libel.
In the whole scheme of things, this article is not even worth discussing. But reading through all the comments, I have lost a lot of respect for Chicagoist and the rest of the "ist-a-verse". I know it's "just" a blog, but I thought standards were higher than having the contributors & editors snipe at readers who are critical of the quality of the writing. And it seems that Chicagoist aspires to be more than "just" a blog.
Chuck is listed as an "Associate Editor" and yet he's taking cheap shots at critical anon commenters? Accusing them of being losers who live with "mommy & daddy". How juvenile & unprofessional. Timmy's responses are even more ridiculous. If the writers and editors of Chicagoist want to be taken seriously, then they also need to take criticism seriously. That means not getting overly defensive and responding in a professional manner.
Generally, I think the writing on Chicagoist is high-quality. But this incident really sours me on the site.
You'll hear no argument from me on that front, jen. Sometimes it's wise to remember that a fair amount of comments are intended to incite, but not all of them are anonymous, even though screen names are used (we do see the email addresses).
I- for one - will promise to do better.
I'm pretty sure Doug does not make his own sausage, guys.
He is from Jacksonville. What else do you want from him? He is from the worst city in all of Florida. He probably went to UNF too. The worst school in Florida.
There's no need for insults, Matt, either from the readers to the staff or vice versa. I don't really care about hot dogs, as I said earlier I believe in supporting independent local businesses. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion and both sides contributed to that escalation. I second the sentiment in Jen's post and appreciate Chuck's reply to it.
"I'm pretty sure Doug does not make his own sausage, guys."
I'm pretty sure he does. He went to culinary school, he serves sausage made out of rabbit and elk and rattlesnake, I don't think he's getting those from the SYSCO truck.
Doug doesn't make his own sausages with his own hands, but he does work with a butcher to create the speciality sausages, so they are made to his recipes and are unique to Hot Doug's. (His normal hot dogs and Polish sausages and such are Vienna Beef, I believe.)
Whatever his fine is, its worth it. It is more publicity for the money than any other medium could have obtained.
Lay off the writers! This is clearly a blog primarily designed for college educated people who moved here from (insert Midwest state or Chicago suburb) after graduation. There is a lot of blogs I don't like. So I don't visit them.
As I read through the comments again, aside from those which affronted my hometown (which is an amazing city, by the way), I realized my stubbornness did not add to the conversation in any way. An important aspect of this medium is the ability for a dialogue, and in my attempt to keep an environment conducive to it the entire point of the post was lost. I tend to leave things open ended, when I reference a bag of Foie Gras sitting next to some Naperville cocaine or a health inspector passing by hot dogs (with which the process of production can be, at times, just as inhumane as producing Foie Gras) I am hoping to elicit commentary on this irony. Instead, due to my choice of words, the dialogue turned into whether or not I was saying Doug Sohn sells sketchy hot dogs.
Regardless, I have updated the article, which still includes the word sketchy. Undoubtedly some will still object, but hopefully it at least shows the feedback was not ignored.
Doug does not make any of his sausages. A very small number of the specialty sausages are made to his specifications, but most are standard products available to any other foodservice establishment. The ones off the top of my head that are exclusive to Doug are the corned beef, the ribeye, and the gyros sausages.
Back to the main point: Timmy's grasp of the English language is, indeed, depressing. And, potentially libelous. It's a good thing Doug is a good guy, although Vienna Beef might not take so kindly to a commercial website implying that their products are less than wholesome.
As a writer for this site, I'd just like to address one non-hot-dog-related point. The fact that not everyone who writes here is from Chicago is representative of the basic geography of this city. My immediate group of friends includes people from Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Texas, Kansas, California and beyond. And I have a couple of good friends that are from the Chicago area. Chicago, like any other large city, is a melting pot of people from all over, and I believe our personal backgrounds allow us to represent the views of the people of the city in a more diverse and comprehensive manner than if we were all born and raised in the city.
But what I do know? I'm a vegetarian from Oklahoma who doesn't eat hot dogs.
If timmy wants to start a debate on how humanely the animals that go into the standard Chicago hot dog are treated, he should perhaps link to an article about beef or sheep farming, not pigs. Very few chicago hot dogs involve pork, only some sizes from vienna use a pork natural casing, and most hot dogs sold in the city are skinless or use a sheep casing.
In any case, it's stupid to pick on hot dogs without taking factory farming as a whole on -- including mentioning all of the acres of rainforest felled in brazil to plant soybeans for tofu/oil/etc.
And I certainly think it's great to get the input of recent immigrants to the Chicago area on chicagoist. They're a significant part of the privileged white yuppie/hipster community in this town, and they deserve to be represented. Although, it would be nice if these writers knew something about the city.
But perhaps it's not smart to have someone who finds hot dogs disgusting writing a piece about one of Chicago's best-regarded hot dog stands if he can't keep his personal opinions on the food out of it.
If it's not going to be a review, don't review the food. It's like going to a pizza place and reviewing the chicken sandwich.
"The fact that not everyone who writes here is from Chicago is representative of the basic geography of this city. My immediate group of friends includes people from Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Texas, Kansas, California and beyond."
Huh, that's been the complete opposite of my experience here (except for the "and beyond" part, beyond being Poland, Ireland, Mexico, Korea, etc.). But what do I know? I've never lived in Wicker Park.
I don't mind that many of the Chicagoist writers are transplants. What frustrates me is their frequent ignorance of basic Chicago information- and their tendency to mention this in blog posts as if being uninformed is cute. Shouldn't a prerequisite for a Chicagoist writing gig be some sort of background knowledge on Chicago-related issues? I hope that at least some of the new people you hire have lived here for more than one year. At least find a transplant who has a strong interest in Chicago history, culture, etc.
Re: Hot Doug's: The great thing about this place is that you can get a 7 dollar "yuppie" dog if you so desire, or you can choose to get a classic Chicago dog for a reasonable price. (If you feel like standing in line for an hour, that is.) Say what you will about the customers and the hype, but Doug has always been a nice guy who seems to really care about his product/restaurant.
What if the "foie gras" really isn't foie gras, but just some chopped liver Doug made up himself?
He'd be in trouble over false advertising, but is there a way to analyze the stuff?
Maybe his lawyer will demand that the "foie gras" be analyzed at the hearing.
Either way Doug wins!
He gets more free press out of it.
Do I really want to add to this? Well, yes. I am glad that Hot Doug's has been well defended, but I would like to draw the Chicagoist readers' attention to this poorly written sentence:
"As one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine, it is pretty odd that a hot dog stand received the first citation."
This is proof that timmy is, indeed, either a poor writer, a poor proofreader, or both. The way in which this sentence is constructed makes "it" the prounoun modified by the clause "As one of the greatest delicacies..." Replace the word "it" with "foie gras"(the presumedly intended target of the clause) and you will see why this is a poorly written sentence.
I am not nitpicking - this is rather simple grammar. Did timmy take any writing classes in college?
wow. this may be THE worst article i have ever read in my entire life. this may be the only comment i've ever posted that wasn't an overstatement.