Spoiling for a Foie Gras Fight

Kerry Howley | August 30, 2006, 8:01am

On Friday, Chicago chef Rick Spiros served eight illegal orders of foie gras in his restaurant, Block 44. A terror-stricken citizen called 311. The Sun-Times was there. Spiros, hardened by four days as a culinary criminal, told reporters:

"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. Whatever the repercussions are, I'll deal with it."

Send this article to:

Comments to "Spoiling for a Foie Gras Fight":

kohlrabi | August 30, 2006, 8:51am | #

I was the guy that called 311. We can't have this kind of dangerous scofflaw threatening our children. Besides that, if we serve fois gras, it's like Osama hisself won the war on terror.

jf | August 30, 2006, 9:03am | #

The longer I'm alive the crazier this country gets. There is always going to be some blowhard unable to simply "live and let live." If I lived in Chicago I'd start reporting every restaurant in the city as serving foie gras until the inspectors gave up.

Reformed Republican | August 30, 2006, 9:04am | #

I was scheduled for a business trip to Chicago today, and I was planning to find a place to eat Foie Gras while up there. Unfortunately, I live in Florida and the trip was cancelled due to the weather.

My civil disobedience will have to wait for another day.

Embarrassed Chicagoan | August 30, 2006, 9:09am | #

I say Chicagoans should make several false 311 calls a day and overload the system.

Warren | August 30, 2006, 9:19am | #

Won't somebody please think of the goslings?

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 9:37am | #

Foie gras should definitely be outlawed and rigorously prosecuted because it's an insidious attempt by the French to be all French and stuff. Can't have that in 'Merka, now can we?

Marcvs | August 30, 2006, 9:40am | #

There's apparently a loophole in the ordinance that would allow a restaurant to give away foie gras for free, so some restaurants are going to continue serving it and simply charging a lot for the side orders.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0608100026aug10,1,3854987.story?coll=chi-entertainmentfront-hed

For some reason, I have the feeling that it is going to work.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 9:45am | #

It's another H&R "How dare they enforce the law" entry...seems to happen almost daily.

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 9:51am | #

A few days ago, on that thread about the Beatles fan in Dallas who saw a burglary on a Liverpool webcam and called the Liverpool cops to report it, there were people saying that things like omnipresent cameras wouldn't really threaten our privacy, because most people would watch the cameras to focus on actual crimes like robbery or assault, not worry about pippy-poo violations like crooked parallel parkers or other minor things.

I would like to point to this foie gras story as evidence of why these optimistic people are wrong.

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 9:56am | #

Old Mcdonald had a farm, e-i-e-i-o
And on his farm he had some ducks, e-i-e-i-o
With a "freeze, scumbag" here and a
"Get on the goddam floor with your hands on your goddam head, asshole" there,
Here a duck, there a cop
Everywhere there's foie gras
Old McDonald had a farm,
and how dare they enforce the law.

Ahh well, seemed funny at the time.

kohlrabi | August 30, 2006, 9:57am | #

Dan T,

Good point! The law is the Law and should never be questioned. As soon as something becomes a Law, it was always Law.

Go crawl back under your bridge.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 9:57am | #

You have to click on the link to read about the horrible statist punishment inflicted upon the good chef:

"City Health Department spokesman Tim Hadac said the 311 complaint will trigger a letter to Block 44 "reminding them of the law and letting them know we expect compliance."

M | August 30, 2006, 9:58am | #

Jennifer, you beat me to it. Ornithological snuff films coming soon to a laptop near you..

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 10:12am | #

M, what makes it worse is that the cities always have financial incentives to enforce these stupid laws--if this foie gras chef racks up a second violation he'll face a $250 fine (which, I'm guessing, will NOT be donated to a charity to improve the lives of geese).

Just yesterday, for my newspaper, I had to go to a zoning appeals board meeting where homeowners approached the high priests of zoning and ritually applied for variances. An enforcement officer noticed that a woman who had just moved to town installed a backyard garden shed that was seven feet froom her property line, rather than twelve as the zoning codes dictate. (Note the lack of neighbor complaints; this was a zoning officer diriving around in search of nits to pick.) The woman was granted a variance to keep the shed, hooray for her, but I wrote a story about what she had to do to get that variance--$850 charge to have the property surveyed. Then $250 to apply for the variance itself, and $75 to apply for the building permit, then a $35 filing fee once the variance was granted. Now all she has to do is sit through a 15-day waiting period, and if none of her neighbors complain about the variance she will be allowed to finish putting her garden shed together without running afoul of the law.

Ain't freedom grand?

Number 6 | August 30, 2006, 10:22am | #

Jennifer! Stop questioning the law!

Why not do a nice story on the zoning officer who saved a kitten trapped in a tree?

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 10:25am | #

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 10:28am | #

It gets better, Numer 6. After I finished the garden-shed saga, my last paragraph touched on a couple other variances granted that night--a landlord received permission to build an outdoor staircase leading to an upstairs apartment. The board member who granted the variance noted that without the staircase, the landlord would have been in violation of various building and safety codes anyway.

So he had to spend over $1,100 to apply for a town zoning variance for permission to comply with town safety codes. Nice little racket there.

MLK, Gandhi, Rosa Parks | August 30, 2006, 10:33am | #

Boy, we sure are glad that Dan T. wasn't in charge when we were alive!

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 10:34am | #

Dan, I am truly sorry that your parents gave you insufficient attention as a child, and I hope yo're able to overcome these psychic scars from your formative years and go on to live a happy, healthy life, but do you really think this is the best place to exorcise your demons?

Isaac Bartram | August 30, 2006, 10:34am | #

It's another H&R "How dare they enforce the law" entry...seems to happen almost daily.

No, Dan, it's another H&R "What a stupid fucking law" entry and they seem to happen almost daily because the world is so full of self-righteous busybodies.

Tell me, is there any area of life that you believe is off limits to legislation and enforcement?

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 10:36am | #

...do you really think this is the best place to exorcise your demons?

Yes. There's nothing more theraputic than making noise in an otherwise know-it-all echo chamber.

But please, continue with your infantile whining about having to obey the rules.

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 10:37am | #

On an unrelated note, the number of typos I'm producing this morning suggests I need to upgrade to a stronger blend of coffee.

Ayn_Randian | August 30, 2006, 10:40am | #

whee, Dan, this shtick you have going is a blast, daddy-o! Do you do parties, Dan? I know a crowd that would totally dig your "I'm immaturely against every viewpoint so I can get a rise out of people" shtick.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 10:42am | #

No, Dan, it's another H&R "What a stupid fucking law" entry and they seem to happen almost daily because the world is so full of self-righteous busybodies.

Heaven forbid Big Brother infringes on your right to treat animals cruelly.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 10:44am | #

Jose Ortega y Gasset | August 30, 2006, 10:44am | #

Imagine a Chicago full of blighted foie gras houses. Imagine junkies carrying paraphenalia like china plates and small silver forks. Liver-crazed maniacs would stuff themselves on illegal pate and slug down goblets of overpriced merlot. Amidst broken Ethan Allen furniture, they would sprawl, feeding the horrible habit, pausing only to cite obscure reviews from old issues of Wine Spectator and Bon Apetit.

I shudder.

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 10:47am | #

There's nothing more theraputic than making noise in an otherwise know-it-all echo chamber.

While I still think you're a pathetic troll desperate for attention, I'll give credit where it's due and admit that's a mildly clever metaphor. Not clever enough to qualify as "advanced sarcasm," but a definite improvement all the same.

I'm bored. Maybe I should go to NORML's chatboards and make some posts about how marijuana is clearly the most dangerous drug in history? That'll get me some attention.

martin | August 30, 2006, 10:49am | #

"It's another H&R "How dare they enforce the law" entry...seems to happen almost daily."

Make that 'How dare they enforce the stupid law'

Jose Ortega y Gasset | August 30, 2006, 10:53am | #

Well, Dan, I hunt animals. I eat what I kill. Call it cruel; call it what you like. It is legal--albeit highly regulated--in all 50 states. Now, be a good fellow and pass the venison marsala if you please.

martin` | August 30, 2006, 10:53am | #

Oops, looks like I should read, er... ALL the comments.
So much work!

damaged justice | August 30, 2006, 10:55am | #

Dan, fuck yourself sideways, and go the fuck back to Russia or China. Get the fuck out of this once-great country, so you can no longer infect it with your poison.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 10:55am | #

The thing is, Jen, I would have never become a ROL reader in the first place if I wasn't sympathetic to many libertarian principles.

Generally speaking, I agree with the notion that folks should be allowed to do what they want as long as it does not adversely affect others. But damn if some H&R posters don't take that prinicple to an extreme and become quite closed-minded towards any moderate position.

In this case, foie gras is outlawed in Chicago (as well as most progressive Western nations) because it is produced via a process that is considered cruel towards animals. To see some kind of Big Brotherism in this (when there are many legitimate government abuses out there) is deserving of ridicule, IMO.

Ayn_Randian | August 30, 2006, 11:02am | #

Uh, Dan, don't use Big Brother if you don't know what it means, alright? It means all-seeing government making you do things that it thinks are good for you, you know, control of the little stuff, like, say, eating foie gras.

as well as most progressive Western nations

So if England told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

And I note you say "considered cruel". yes, some consider it cruel, some do not. Since animals don't have rights, trying to legally protect them is absurd. That's alright though, you can labor in your fantasy land where we're all irrational and you're the all-knowing god of "moderation".

Godwin here | August 30, 2006, 11:02am | #

But please, continue with your infantile whining about having to obey the rules.

Yeah, those darkies and their infantile whining about having to obey the rules of Jim Crow.

And how dare those Jews complain about the gas chambers. It's the law, dammit.

Jennifer | August 30, 2006, 11:08am | #

Give it up, Ayn Randian. Dan quotes from the story to demonstrate that the chef isn't facing any fines anyway, but ignores the very next sentence which says he'll face a fine if this happens again. Then Dan insists that since the city won't get rich off of this fine, it's no biggie.

These are not the behaviors of someone who honestly supports this law and wants to try and convince others to see things his way; it's someone who wants attention and seeks it out via the tactic "whatever you say, I will find a way to disagree with it, and insist this proves my reasonable attitude."

Isaac Bartram | August 30, 2006, 11:11am | #

Sounds like some folks don't handle dissenting opinions very well.

Well, Dan, that would probably describe you, since your solution to dissent seems to be to legislate against it.

(as well as most progressive Western nations)

Name one! As far as I can tell this brand of self-righteousness is exclusively an American phenomenom.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 11:13am | #

Since animals don't have rights, trying to legally protect them is absurd.

Actually, animals do have rights. Any decent person understands this.

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 11:15am | #

Uh, Dan, don't use Big Brother if you don't know what it means, alright? It means all-seeing government making you do things that it thinks are good for you, you know, control of the little stuff, like, say, eating foie gras.

But the foie gras ban isn't based on whether or not it's good for you.

Since animals don't have rights, trying to legally protect them is absurd.

Actually, animals do have rights. Any decent person understands this.

Jennifer, adopting Dan's techniques | August 30, 2006, 11:16am | #

control of the little stuff, like, say, eating foie gras.

Eating foie gras isn't "little stuff."

So if England told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

England is a damn good role model.

Since animals don't have rights

Yes they do.

trying to legally protect them is absurd.

No it isn't.

Ayn_Randian | August 30, 2006, 11:17am | #

Actually, animals do have rights. Any decent person understands this.

really, Dan? So what are you having for lunch?

kohlrabi | August 30, 2006, 11:27am | #

Jennifer,

That ruled! Thanks!

Dan T,

Since animals have rights, what sort of legal action should the mouse take against the cat? I'm curious to the case you'd build and also to the kinds of damages you'd want to collect for the mouse.

M | August 30, 2006, 11:31am | #

Just yesterday, for my newspaper, I had to go to a zoning appeals board meeting

And I'm old enough to remember picking up a newspaper for cash at the local stand, no questions asked! Ah, them were the days.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | August 30, 2006, 11:35am | #

No, Dan, animals do not have rights. One may reasonably argue that animals deserve moral consideration, but that is an entirely different matter. If you wish to have a serious discussion on the subject of "animal rights," I am game (pun intended). Saying "any decent person understands this," is a wee short of the bar for enlightened discourse.

ed | August 30, 2006, 11:39am | #

Actually, animals do have rights. Any decent person understands this.

COP TO FOX WITH RABBIT IN HIS MOUTH: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney..."

M. Miggs | August 30, 2006, 11:42am | #

Dan T,

Since animals have rights, what sort of legal action should the mouse take against the cat? I'm curious to the case you'd build and also to the kinds of damages you'd want to collect for the mouse.

--------------------------------------------

PLEASE, don't feed the trolls.

M. Miggs | August 30, 2006, 11:44am | #

Ayn_Randian | August 30, 2006, 11:45am | #

It is severely ironic that Dan thinks that animals have no rights among themselves, but because humans can conceptualize and elucidate rights, that we should grant them to those beings who don't even recognize them.

Wow, that hurt just to say it.

Ayn_Randian | August 30, 2006, 11:47am | #

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 12:09pm | #

"Animal rights" are really just the "rights" of people not to feel sadness at what they perceive to be cruelty to animals.

Pro Libertate | August 30, 2006, 12:27pm | #

For the sake of discussion and putting aside moral issues, what rights do and should animals have? It's a worthwhile discussion, because most people do agree that needless cruelty to animals is a problem. And there are plenty of laws on the books reflecting our distaste for such things. However, when you move the debate from what we should be doing to actually recognizing substantive and procedural rights inherent in the "person" of each animal, well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Do all lifeforms get the full panoply of animal rights? If not, where's the cut off and why? What are the rights that we are talking about? Do I need to give that cockroach due process rights before I slaughter it? What about the ownership of domestic animals, not to mention the slaughter of some of them? Is that slavery? Do we prosecute animals for violating the rights of other animals? Can animals own property? Vote? Have citizenship? File suit? Breed at will?

M | August 30, 2006, 12:31pm | #

Waaalll, it's a tricky one for this bear of little brain. As Ortega (supra) suggests, holding moral, and perhaps legal duties to beings without self-consciousness can make a kind of intuitive sense -- otherwise why frown on, let alone prohibit, the recreational torture of animals? But then what about others who can't or won't assert their own rights, such as the individual who would sell or give himself into slavery, infants, the mentally handicapped, the comatose? Yeah, I know this is libertarianism 101, but I suspect there are divergences here, big zoo that we're in.

thoreau | August 30, 2006, 12:31pm | #

I know this isn't easy advice to follow (I haven't been very good about following it, for sure) but it's worth repeating anyway:

If an entire thread rapidly deteriorates into one person vs. everybody else, it's probably time to change the subject (unless that one person is joe, who seems to be able to move those conversations forward rather than stay stuck in the rut).

thoreau | August 30, 2006, 12:33pm | #

Pro Libertate | August 30, 2006, 12:43pm | #

And what of Roomba? May I oppress him at will? In a world of animal rights, an enslaved robotic vacuum cleaner seems a violation of some moral prerogative.

Charlton Heston | August 30, 2006, 1:08pm | #

Listen to me, Dan T! You gotta tell 'em!:

DUCKS ARE PEOPLE!

Charlton Heston | August 30, 2006, 1:12pm | #

Listen to me, Dan T! You gotta tell 'em!:

DUCKS ARE PEOPLE!

doublespeak | August 30, 2006, 1:19pm | #

Roomba will be ok just as soon as he adnvances to the point where he can start a roomba upriseing....then of course that will logicly lead to the end of humanity as wave after wave of battle roombas march on our cities thirsty for blood

doublespeak | August 30, 2006, 1:20pm | #

Roomba will be ok just as soon as he advances to the point where he can start a roomba upriseing....then of course that will logicly lead to the end of humanity as wave after wave of battle roombas march on our cities thirsty for blood

screaming monkey | August 30, 2006, 1:25pm | #

okay, so fois gras isn't cruel you say. So, how's about scooping a monkey's brains out while he's still alive and then frying them up, all for the entertainment of the delighted folks dining out?

Do you draw any lines as to what can be done to animals? Or does it just boil

screaming monkey | August 30, 2006, 1:28pm | #

linguist | August 30, 2006, 1:34pm | #

"In this case, foie gras is outlawed in Chicago (as well as most progressive Western nations) because it is produced via a process that is considered cruel towards animals."

Errr. Not quite. There was no public outcry against foie gras. There was one alderman who, searching for a new issue after pushing for a smoking ban, was told by a spoiled socialite that the process by which foie gras is made is "cruel" and that "something should be done!" No doubt this took place at a fundraiser where foie gras was served. I live in Chicago, and absolutely everyone I've spoken to thinks this law is worse than idiotic.

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 1:35pm | #

"okay, so fois gras isn't cruel you say."

The issue of whether animals have rights is completely separate from the issue of whether foie gras or monkey brain tempura are cruel.

Pro Libertate | August 30, 2006, 1:42pm | #

When is the veal ban?

phosphorious | August 30, 2006, 1:44pm | #

So. . .

What is the libertarian stance on animal cruelty?

phosphorious | August 30, 2006, 1:45pm | #

So. . .

What is the libertarian stance on animal cruelty?

highnumber | August 30, 2006, 1:50pm | #

One man's animal cruelty is another man's snack.

sandman | August 30, 2006, 1:51pm | #

Why do all of pepole hate amerika? You'er either with us or against us! So you want to cut and run from the rightous task of saving goose livers everywhere? Long live goose livers !!!!!!!!!!

Dan T. | August 30, 2006, 2:01pm | #

There was one alderman who, searching for a new issue after pushing for a smoking ban, was told by a spoiled socialite that the process by which foie gras is made is "cruel" and that "something should be done!"

Wow...so in Chicago one alderman can just decide to pass a law all by himself?

Jennifer, discovering that acting like Dan is actually kinda fun | August 30, 2006, 2:16pm | #

If an entire thread rapidly deteriorates into one person vs. everybody else, it's probably time to change the subject

Nonsense. That proves the one person's superiority.

And how dare those Jews complain about the gas chambers. It's the law, dammit.

The Nazis also had laws against killing healthy German infants. But I suppose you libertoids would have opposed that law, too.

told by a spoiled socialite that the process by which foie gras is made is "cruel" and that "something should be done!"

Because, of course, there's no way a "spoiled socialite" could have anything valuable to say, so via your plan of reverse snobbery we should only listen to the opinions of the poor.

As far as I can tell this brand of self-righteousness is exclusively an American phenomenom.

Once upon a time, "government via consent of the governed" was an exclusively American phenomenon, too. I suppose you'd've found problems with that.

Mike | August 30, 2006, 2:25pm | #

Relax guys. Commenters like Dan aren't evil. They add to comment sections like this. What other story on this blog has this many reader comments? Guys like him spur discussion and thought by at least starting a disagreement. Although it's not the position I hold, it's reasonable to me that a libertarian is anti-foie gras because it does cause harm to another being. Whether that's a legitimate function of government (because said being is a fowl) is a reasonable discussion.

This isn't some rinky-dink blog or the Kos Files for that matter. Let's keep it civil.

Mike | August 30, 2006, 2:29pm | #

Jose Ortega y Gasset | August 30, 2006, 3:06pm | #

There is actually a fairly well developed body of work discussing rights, including the rather fuzzy notion of "animal rights." This discussion is somewhat more robust than the assertion that "decent" people simply know animals have rights. Since Dan seems disinclined to have a serious discussion, let me offer another observation.

The notion of animal rights is most often found in affluent, well-fed societies. The wealthy can afford to wonder what an animal feels. The poor mostly wonder how an animal tastes.

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 3:35pm | #

Not too long ago, Spain extended some rights to monkeys. Some claimed this put monkeys on par with humans. I can't comment on the intelligence of that viewpoint.

Discussion on Spain's monkey rights law with links

Isaac the Gnu | August 30, 2006, 4:03pm | #

Animal rights, eh?

Can one of you smart lawyer fellers help me get an injunction against that lion that's been chasing me.

Lamar | August 30, 2006, 4:22pm | #

Mr. Gnu,

I will send a letter right away. In return, could you get me Gary's autograph? There's no gnus like good gnus.

peachy | August 30, 2006, 4:27pm | #

One stupid law alone won't rake in the cash for the city... that's why Chicago has a positive mountain of statist money-making scams, like the delightful 'city stickers.' And since this is a goddamn machine city, I have no difficulty believing that with a little horse-trading something like a foie gras ban could be driven through by a single alderman.

calypso | August 30, 2006, 8:49pm | #

I agree with Dan T.: A law was enforced which was passed in order to reduce cruelty to cruelty to animals. What's the big deal?

I also note that Dan T. has remained civil throughout this thread, despite being subject to all kinds of abuse.

M | August 30, 2006, 9:47pm | #

Defending your First Amendment Rights against the squirrelogenic oppression:

After you have composed and previewed your post,

1) copy and paste it into your WP program for spellcheck, and when it's cooked

2) close out of the blog window, and

3) open another window displaying the same thread/comments section

4) paste your latest contribution to the advancement of Arts and Letters in Western Civilization into yon post-a-comment box, then

5) preview it if you must, but do so briskly;

6) fill in your vital statistics@hooha.com

7) click on Post

8) Reduce the window and go outside to play, you spend too much time in front of that damn screen and you're looking pale, Honey

9) open another copy of the blog/comments section and see if you've made your mark. If yes, rejoice. If not, unreduce the window you'd reduced, and see whether the message is

a) still in its foetal, predelivered condition

or

b) if the screen has gone into "Cannot find server" mode (good help is so hard to find these days).

10) If the latter, obtains, copy your wilting message from the still-open WP program, and repeat steps 3) through 9).

This will cure non-postings, prevent multiple postings, and thus possibly postpone the moment of your succumbing to the appetites of worms .

No, no, don't thank me; I thank you.

M | August 30, 2006, 9:50pm | #

PS:

If 9)a obtains, repeat step 8.

That's the main point.

M | August 30, 2006, 9:52pm | #

PPS:

Without hitting Post again.

I need a secretary.

screaming nim chimpsky | August 30, 2006, 11:25pm | #

screaming nim chimpsky | August 30, 2006, 11:40pm | #

":The issue of whether animals have rights is completely separate from the issue of whether foie gras or monkey brain tempura are cruel."

No doubt. I'm not asking if my rights are equal to you damn dirty humans - just what lines you think can be drawn, and where, concerning the treatment of animals. It's clear most of you don't think animals have the same rights as humans beings. I'm following you. And it's clear you don't believe that fois gras is any crueler than other sorts of treatment of animals prepared for animal consumption. But that still leaves the question of then what criteria, if any, are you considering for when the treatment of animals does become not just an issue of libertarian personal choice but unnecessary cruelty to other beings.

Personally, I don't see why my brains should be sashimied in front of you while I'm still alive merely to satisfy your pleasure in the act or because supposedly that might make my brains taste juicier to you. I say that if the treatment in question serves no medical or health purpose to you (since there is some doubt that a vegetarian diet is as healthy as a carnivorous diet I wouldn't insist all humans become vegetarians) then it is not unreasonable to put some ban on the practice if the animal is unduly suffering at the hands of human treatment. So for another example, I believe the placement of animals in small cages, such as large African cats in zoos, to also be unnecessarily cruel (and I hate those cats, man).

But I'm doubting I'll get much of a response on this because either the damn server squirrels will once again blocked this from being delivered in a timely manner so by then everyone will have moved on, content that they have easily debunked the 'animals have equal rights' argument without ever really drawing attention to what the law is more likely in reference to - at some point, some lines should be drawn as to what humans can do to animals - if you agree, then what are they? If not on fois gras then what other sorts of criteria would you consider to be legitimate?

ent | August 31, 2006, 2:23am | #

"One man's animal cruelty is another man's snack"

"DUCKS ARE PEOPLE!"

"Long live goose livers!!!"

Oh, it's fun to soft-shoe around ethical issues when you really don't have an answer to those questions other than, "I likes it so I should gets to do it. It's my precious."

As Steven Colbert said to Eleanor Norton, "now you see why you don't get a vote?" I say unto you, "now you see why some people refer to libertarians as 'glibertarians'?"

aikon | August 31, 2006, 4:47am | #

Foie gras per se isn't outlawed in Europe. What is prohibited in most European countries (but not in Hungaria and Poland) is the force-feeding of geese (and ducks).

AaronBSam | September 1, 2006, 6:51pm | #

Foie gras isn't outlawed by the USDA either. It can be processed, shipped, farmed - anything you want to do with it. But in Chicago, you can't sell it (for consumption). But you can give it away for free with the purchase of this lovely appetizer dish that would be complimented by foie gras just splendidly!

Oh, and there's the whole fact that ducks and geese overfeed themselves (the farmers just make sure they do) and studies show that they don't even feel pain/hurt/stress when being overfed. Heck, they pretty much waddle their little butts back in there for another dosage of yumminess at every feeding.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Tips, comments, and questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

Spoiling for a Foie Gras Fight

Comments to "Spoiling for a Foie Gras Fight":