# Frois gras



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Well folks, its official. Starting today frois gras is a banned substance within the city limits of Chicago. This from the home of deep dish pizza. Perhaps a new black market will emerge.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

I`m assuming foie gras has been banned due to the cruellty involved to the geese and ducks in its production . is this the reason or is there some further obscure reason?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

And the chefs rebel! Personally, I try not to anger folks who carry meat cleavers and butcher's knives: 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/ente...76.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Tom Bell-Drier said:


> I`m assuming foie gras has been banned due to the cruellty involved to the geese and ducks in its production . is this the reason or is there some further obscure reason?


Exactly. Here's the story:


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wonder how many diners would be willing to force feed their own birds before ordering.

Seems natural enough: 
https://www.all-creatures.org/sof/plate-foiegras.html

So it goes in the land of enlightenment...and francheezies.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Wonder how many diners would be willing to force feed their own birds before ordering.


Diners are not asked to slaughter their own cows or pigs either. That's why they go out to dinner.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

A group of chefs is planning to sue to have the law repealed. Chicago city council has been known of late to pass some really silly laws. A few weeks ago they passed a "living wage" ordnance which very well may be vetoed by the Mayor.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am unsure exactly how uncomfortable the gavage method is on the birds but carrying around that liver cannot be fun! However, I wonder if vegans that eat food obtained through use of modern farm machinery would feel different if they saw the cuddly bunnies and field mice that get torn to bits when the discing of the wheat and soy fields are done. Are vegans required to drive the huge tractors that kill uncounted field creatures? Of course not.

I know I shall head out and have some foi gras this weekend as I am sure my lefty city will take this up next.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

BertieW said:


> *Wonder how many diners would be willing to force feed their own birds before ordering.*
> 
> Seems natural enough:
> https://www.all-creatures.org/sof/plate-foiegras.html
> ...


Isn't that like asking who would want to kill the cow, before cutting out their steak?

Not that I am a fan of Foie Gras (I have tried it once and wasn't overly impressed), but how is force feeding ducks any different, than keeping a baby lamb penned up so that it can't walk around so as to not build up any muscle tissue allowing veal to be so tender?

If you take the PETA stance, all animal meats should not be served.

If you take my stance, PETA should come forward and fess up to what their name actually stands for - People Enjoying Tasty Animals.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Well, I'm a buddhist vegetarian, so that leaves me on the sidelines in the carnivore convention. I think keeping baby veal calves penned up is also bloody cruel.

https://www.britishmeat.com/veal.html

Ah, but who gives a toss? It's tasty.

Then there's this bit of dietary progress:



Trenditional said:


> Isn't that like asking who would want to kill the cow, before cutting out their steak?
> 
> Not that I am a fan of Foie Gras (I have tried it once and wasn't overly impressed), but how is force feeding ducks any different, than keeping a baby lamb penned up so that it can't walk around so as to not build up any muscle tissue allowing veal to be so tender?
> 
> ...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think there is a bit of distance between saying that it's okay to eat meat and saying that anything the human mind can devise to make meat tastier or more appetizing is morally acceptable. As the work of Temple Grandin has shown, even in the burger industry it is possible to come up with ways to reduce needless suffering in the animals who are about to be slaughtered to feed us. I don't think an ethical stance that allows the consumption of meat, or the destruction of animals in the production of vegetable foods, means that all concern for the suffering and wellbeing of animals raised as crops is a proper subject of ridicule.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Well, I'm a buddhist vegetarian, so that leaves me on the sidelines in the carnivore convention. I think keeping a baby veal calves penned up is also bloody cruel.


It most assuredly does not leave you on the sidelines for the carnage I described above however. I spent my life up through my teens in a farming community. Have you any idea the carnage of cute little cuddly animals farming causes? Have you ever seen what happens when a field is left fallow for a couple years of regeneration and it clovers over? When the initial turnover is done, the number of dead animals is appalling. Death is on your hands too, messy death from mutilation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I think there is a bit of distance between saying that it's okay to eat meat and saying that anything the human mind can devise to make meat tastier or more appetizing is morally acceptable. As the work of Temple Grandin has shown, even in the burger industry it is possible to come up with ways to reduce needless suffering in the animals who are about to be slaughtered to feed us. I don't think an ethical stance that allows the consumption of meat, or the destruction of animals in the production of vegetable foods, means that all concern for the suffering and wellbeing of animals raised as crops is a proper subject of ridicule.


It is all a matter of degree in my mind. While I certainly want to mitigate suffering, dead is dead. What ethical stance I find totally hollow however, is one that allows people to think they are somehow superior for their dietary habits. I have always had very little patience with Peter Singer type ethics.

Edit: I am sorry, tried to resist but could not. I have to be the first one in this thread to say, "Wasn't Hitler vegetarian?"


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

My wife and I raise a substantial portion of our food, and obtain nearly all the rest from local, small organic farmers.

I don't delude myself in thinking that my existence on this plane comes without some deleterious consequences for other life forms. But neither do I go out of my way to do harm to other creatures. I do the best I can.

I certainly don't feel the need to consume animals that have been subjected to especially vicious treatment in the course of their short, wretched lives.

Perhaps you can see the distinction.

Best.



Wayfarer said:


> It most assuredly does not leave you on the sidelines for the carnage I described above however. I spent my life up through my teens in a farming community. Have you any idea the carnage of cute little cuddly animals farming causes? Have you ever seen what happens when a field is left fallow for a couple years of regeneration and it clovers over? When the initial turnover is done, the number of dead animals is appalling. Death is on your hands too, messy death from mutilation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> My wife and I raise a substantial portion of our food, and nearly all the rest from local, small organic farmers.
> 
> I don't delude myself in thinking that my existence on this plane comes without some deleterious consequences for other life forms. But neither do I go out of my way to do harm to other creatures. I do the best I can.
> 
> ...


Bertie: Fair enough. I still plan to have some foi gras this weekend though


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have to be the first one in this thread to say, "Wasn't Hitler vegetarian?"


The question is, at least, debated.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I think there is a bit of distance between saying that it's okay to eat meat and saying that anything the human mind can devise to make meat tastier or more appetizing is morally acceptable. As the work of Temple Grandin has shown, even in the burger industry it is possible to come up with ways to reduce needless suffering in the animals who are about to be slaughtered to feed us. I don't think an ethical stance that allows the consumption of meat, or the destruction of animals in the production of vegetable foods, means that all concern for the suffering and wellbeing of animals raised as crops is a proper subject of ridicule.


Wow, jackmccullough, I actually agree with you on something. If for no other ethical/moral reason than that man has such complete power/control over animals, his power should be constrained by the uniquely human notion that the powerful should care for the weak which, in my opinion, should mean that he does not seek to inflict unnecessary pain on the defenseless. I'm not a vegetarian, but I welcome any and all attempts to diminish the pain and suffering of livestock .


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> ...I am sorry, tried to resist but could not. I have to be the first one in this thread to say, "Wasn't Hitler vegetarian?"


So are you're making a comparrison between two facist groups: brown shirts and animal rights groups?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Debated, and some contend debunk(er)ed:

https://www.slate.com/id/2096259/

For me, the point is irrelevant, if an interesting historical footnote.



Étienne said:


> The question is, at least, debated.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Edit: I am sorry, tried to resist but could not. I have to be the first one in this thread to say, "Wasn't Hitler vegetarian?"


There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently (though perhaps incorrectly) referred to as Godwin's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently (though perhaps incorrectly) referred to as Godwin's Law.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


Wow... Daily Kos would shut down if this was applied.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_I certainly don't feel the need to consume animals that have been subjected to especially vicious treatment in the course of their short, wretched lives.

Perhaps you can see the distinction. _

I can.

In a related vein, I don't feel the need to authorize government agents to go around forcing other people to eat the way I choose to eat. I simply eat the way I choose to eat, and let others choose the way they want to eat.

Criticizing people for eating in ways that one finds objectionable (or behaving in any other way one finds objectionable) is very different from employing the jackboot of government to force them to act as you would prefer.

Perhaps you can see the distinction.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Debated, and some contend debunk(er)ed.


That would be going too far, I think. The evidence is pretty clear: he considered himself a vegetarian (for health reasons) and followed a mostly vegetarian diet, but did indulge in some meat or animal-related products from time to time.

There is no doubt that vegetarian activists would not have called him strictly vegetarian.

I agree that the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, of course.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I've said nothing to indicate that I endorse government-mandated dietary rules. That's a little too Leviticus for my tastes.

Of course if the majority of a community wishes to adopt such a policy through democratic congress, I applaud the process.



Phinn said:


> _I certainly don't feel the need to consume animals that have been subjected to especially vicious treatment in the course of their short, wretched lives.
> 
> Perhaps you can see the distinction. _
> 
> ...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_Of course if the majority of a community wishes to adopt such a policy through democratic congress, I applaud the process._

I disagree. Government is organized force. The fact that a majority of people in a geographical area approve of some use of force (by agents acting on their behalf) doesn't, in itself, make that use of force any more legitimate.

Unless you believe in some kind of idea that democratic regimes are infallible. Which would be silly.

Democracy is, in essence, nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

The results of that vote are no more legitimate than a vote by a bunch of people who pretend to rule over me deciding what I can eat for dinner.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

I have eaten foie gras it is a much overated delicacy .

I have previously posted in the fox hunting thread (I am very pro fox hunting)
so some on the forum may find it difficult to believe , I am very much against cruelty to animals particually cruelty involved in the production of food for human consumption, I am also an avid meat eater be it game, or any other type of meat, however I also try very hard to avoid factory produced ,avian, bovine or porcine products.
I am a strong believer in natural animal husbandry "cows eat grass achieve good naturaly, produced flesh and muscle and then are humaneley slaughtered" I have no ethical issue in this regard.

as with most things it`s not allways black and white there`s a lot of shades of gray between

(trenditional couldn`t help noticing you refer to veal as lamb I`m sure you must have been thinking of calf`s but like myself are usually rushing to get your thoughts down on paper as it were ,before the discussion moves ever onward)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for all the chuckles over my Hitler reference, especially Jack. It never fails.

Tom, I have to disagree, properly prepared, high quality foi gras is quite simply ambrosia. Much like sushi, it is in the quality of the ingredient and the skill of the chef.

Phinn, excellent points. Reminds me of salt in Demolition Man. Happy happy joy joy.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Democracy is, in essence, nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
> 
> The results of that vote are no more legitimate than a vote by a bunch of people who pretend to rule over me deciding what I can eat for dinner.


Perhaps a direct democracy like that practiced in ancient Athens however we are not a democracy but a republic. Our representatives vote on laws and we vote in our representatives. We can either vote them out in the next election or we can take the issue to court and settle it there. I am against the ban on froie gras because of the principle however agree with BertieW that if it is the wish of the community than it should be expressed in law.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Dietary decisions may be based whole or partly on a combination of ethical, perceived health pros and cons and simple economics and flavour. While supporting the redwoods activists and Julia Butterfly I had some rather amusing culinary adventures. Activists are by nature fanatics, and that is in itself often a good thing. When the opposition is just as fanatical a little extremism acts as counterwieght. So I arrive with bulk sacks of basmati rice,pasta, beans, dried fruits, freetrade, shade grown coffee, tea- and kosher butter. The butter started a catterwalling from the Vegans. I was brewing up traditional tibetan buttered tea while calmly explaining his holyness the Dalai Lama drank this traditional beverage daily, and in the cold temperate rainforest this gift from the animals would help stave off hypothermia. the Vegans quieted at mention of his holyness and soon were sipping tibetan tea ( admittedly an acquired taste for anyone) while I tied off some prayer flags donated by a L.A. based lama. Then this drumming circle from the Lakota peoples arrived to do a prayer complete with sweetgrass smudging and the hair raising nasal chanting not unlike scottish bagpipes coming at you in the fog. They also brought- buffalo meat. Rich, red northern plains born,bred and butchered ta tonka. The Vegans were in a real moral crisis. I explained buffalo were all free range, never vaccinated and aside from the lowest fat % are the only known animal free of cancer.i expalined buffalo were the economic rebirth once again of demoralised native peoples. I could smell their stubborn resistance in the subtle chemical change of sweat and patchouli. I tried to explain how Waken Tonka made this a gift, that eating buffalo to a great plains indian was akin to Christian communion. About now the perfume of dutch oven cooked buffalo came floating among the smell of tree resin and the salt air. I noticed a second glandular secretion, drooling. A few took tenative bites. Within minutes it was a scene out of Clan of the Cavebear. Food and it's preparation embraces humanity's most ancient of codes, taboos and rituals.What anyone shoves in their mouth should be examined just as carefully as what goes in our ears and ultimately, brains and souls. I don't eat geese period. but thats a personal religous matter.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I am against the ban on froie gras because of the principle however agree with BertieW that if it is the wish of the community than it should be expressed in law.


So if the community wanted to racially segregate schools, public areas, and resturants (between those who can eat frois gras and those who can't) that would be ok as long as it was the wish of the majority of the voters, right?

Well, not to those of us who believe in rights (like the right to eat what you want) and realize democracy is just a few steps from mob rule...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> So if the community wanted to racially segregate schools, public areas, and resturants (between those who can eat frois gras and those who can't) that would be ok as long as it was the wish of the majority of the voters, right?
> 
> Well, not to those of us who believe in rights (like the right to eat what you want) and realize democracy is just a few steps from mob rule...


Not at all. That's what the courts are for.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> _Of course if the majority of a community wishes to adopt such a policy through democratic congress, I applaud the process._
> 
> I disagree. Government is organized force. The fact that a majority of people in a geographical area approve of some use of force (by agents acting on their behalf) doesn't, in itself, make that use of force any more legitimate.
> 
> ...


Your "organized force" language is reminiscent of classic libertarianism, yet your statements imply that no government decision ever has any legitimacy. Being alone doesn't make you wrong, but I don't think it's a principle that can work in any society.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_if it is the wish of the community than it should be expressed in law_

All sorts of crimes can be (and have been) expressed in law. Or at least, in legalistic form. It doesn't matter whether unjust laws are enacted by direct democracy or via a republican form. In the former case, the men with guns who enforce an act of legislation disguised as law are acting as the agents of the people who voted for it. In the latter case, the men with guns are acting as agents of the agents of the people who voted for it. In either case, those who support and tolerate unjust laws are, ultimately, equally culpable.

The law's proper function is to protect life, liberty and property. But, as we see with something even as small and relatively inconsequential as foie gras, people who pretend to lord over others frequently disregard this basic function of the law. Instead, they use the pretense of law-giving power to destroy rights they are supposed to protect.

_Your "organized force" language is reminiscent of classic libertarianism, yet your statements imply that no government decision ever has any legitimacy. Being alone doesn't make you wrong, but I don't think it's a principle that can work in any society._

I suppose it is. But you are wrong in your other assumption -- I have a very clear idea of what the legitimate use of force consists of. A legitimate government would only be permitted to do what any citizen could do. A legitimate government would merely be the organization of the individual right of self-defense.

If I hire a security guard to protect my property, the fact that he is my agent means that he cannot legitimately do anything that I could not do myself. I cannot empower him to steal from people or force them to do things, for example.

50 people cannot empower a security guard to do those things any more than one person can.

200 million people cannot legitimately do something through an agent what they could not legitimately do themselves.

In any event, if you are going to blithely declare that I am "wrong," the least you could do is back it up with something specific.

You could start with what you mean by "work." (As in "that will never work.") It is the most vague word in the statist's vocabulary, and it is therefore used to cover up a _lot_ of sins.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Poor Wayfarer, the man's devoted to a musical instrument clinically shown to be a warm, wet breeding ground for potentialy life threatening nasties and lives in the heart of coccidiodomycosos ( Valley Fever ) country. And now we learn he enjoys a foul delicacy. I think the man needs an invite to a good California sushi bar. Our latest emotional burden, along with waiting for the big one is a small outbreak of a particularly nasty lung parasite from eating RAW crab. I am going to have breakfast early tommorow; biscuits with pork gravy, coffee very black, pink grapefruit juice and apple pie a la mode. The waitress is a busty blond named Blanche from OKC working her way through Cosmetollogy school. The vintage juke box has Sinatra on it. I'm going to play 'MY WAY" as I pollute my temple. Police just discovered and destroyed a huge marijuana farm in the Cleveland National Forest. News says finding the growers is unlikely. I think it's the two characters who pull up for veggie burgers and soy shakes every Tuesday with a load of irrigation supplies bought with cash from the greatfull mom and pop hardware store. They asked the local hunters how to control deer without making noise. They got the local park alpha goose mad last week and tried to kick it walking to the truck. Sometimes it's better to listen to an animal than eat it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> _if it is the wish of the community than it should be expressed in law_
> 
> All sorts of crimes can be (and have been) expressed in law. Or at least, in legalistic form. It doesn't matter whether unjust laws are enacted by direct democracy or via a republican form. In the former case, the men with guns who enforce an act of legislation disguised as law are acting as the agents of the people who voted for it. In the latter case, the men with guns are acting as agents of the agents of the people who voted for it. In either case, those who support and tolerate unjust laws are, ultimately, equally culpable.
> 
> The law's proper function is to protect life, liberty and property. But, as we see with something even as small and relatively inconsequential as foie gras, people who pretend to lord over others frequently disregard this basic function of the law. Instead, they use the pretense of law-giving power to destroy rights they are supposed to protect.


All this over fattened goose liver!

I'm not arguing that some laws are unwise or even unjust. All I am implying is that there are mechanisms to address such laws. We have periodic elections and we have the courts. The case in point is on its way to be litigated and although I am no lawyer I don't see how the law will hold up in court.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> All this over fattened goose liver!


And as the saying goes: "For want of a nail the shoe was lost...."


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*And how is Chicago dealing with all this...*

From today's Chicago Tribune:

_Chicago's Wild Foie Gras Chase_

_Mayor Daley calls the ban the `silliest' law. Restaurants across town serve up the delicacy in defiance. Now the question is whether city officials will actually try to enforce the new law._

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608230150aug23,1,4739229.story


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_All this over fattened goose liver!_

No, all this over the use of aggressive force to tell people what they can and can't eat. Calling this legislative act a "rule" or a "law" tends to gloss over the fact that what it really means is that if you don't do as they command, other people who work for them will eventually enter your home or place of business and extract payment from you by force and/or incarcerate you for defying them.

The stunning arrogance and abuse of power that is behind this sort of thing is easier to see, in all its glory, when it concerns something like fois gras.

_I'm not arguing that some laws are unwise or even unjust. All I am implying is that there are mechanisms to address such laws. We have periodic elections and we have the courts._

Periodic elections are simply the means by which Group A tells Group B what they can and can't do. Elections give the patina of authority and legitimacy to the government's interference with other people's lives, which ranges in severity from annoying meddling (fois gras) to outright theft (.

_The case in point is on its way to be litigated and although I am no lawyer I don't see how the law will hold up in court._

I don't see how the law will _not_ hold up. The fundamental principle of limited government appears to have been nothing but an empty promise and a pipe dream, and now most people simply accept the idea that governments can do pretty much whatever a majority of voters says they can.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Phinn said:


> _..._ most people simply accept the idea that governments can do pretty much whatever a majority of voters says they can.


What do you advocate as an alternative? It seems to me that if we allow others to arrogate government of ourselves, then majority rule is the least bad option.



> I suppose it is. But you are wrong in your other assumption -- I have a very clear idea of what the legitimate use of force consists of. A legitimate government would only be permitted to do what any citizen could do. A legitimate government would merely be the organization of the individual right of self-defense.
> 
> If I hire a security guard to protect my property, the fact that he is my agent means that he cannot legitimately do anything that I could not do myself. I cannot empower him to steal from people or force them to do things, for example.
> 
> ...


Should I be permitted to posses a nuclear attack submarine, or would you suggest that the state legitimately cannot?

Aus


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> No, all this over the use of aggressive force to tell people what they can and can't eat. Calling this legislative act a "rule" or a "law" tends to gloss over the fact that what it really means is that if you don't do as they command, other people who work for them will eventually enter your home or place of business and extract payment from you by force and/or incarcerate you for defying them.


I agree with you on the Foie Gras point however on the larger point are we to not live with laws?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

In general, even a monarchy would provide more freedom than a democratic nation-state. (And I'm certainly not a monarchist.) I recommend Hoppe's _Democracy: The God That Failed_ on that point.

For a more lively read, there's Bastiat, whose works are shorter and available online. He tried to stop the Left and Right wings of the 19th century French Assembly from plunging his country into one of those two flavors of socialism. He failed, but his writings on the subject are still a good read.

Free markets offer the best hope for peace and prosperity, although I have no reason to think that a world based on them will ever come to pass, not on a large scale, and certainly not until after the modern nation-state plunges us into a new dark age.

That won't happen because of a ban on fois gras, of course. It will come about because of economic collapse as the result of currency manipulation, price-fixing and foreign wars, which is what has brought down every world power (the Persians, the Chinese, the various Mesopotamian empires, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, etc.).

As for attack submarines, only governments have ever had a use for them. Private citizens don't build or buy such things. They are wasteful, expensive and uselsss to someone who makes his living buying and selling things in a free market, which is based on voluntary, mutual cooperation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck:

No one would want to eat my liver, it would taste like Canadian whisky!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_are we to not live with laws?_

Of course, but a decree from a town council about what we can eat is not law. Law is a natural principle, something we discover. Otherwise, it's just one group of people pretending to have the legitimate authority to tell other people what they can do.

Lysander Spooner summed it up a long time ago:

_All the great governments of the world - those now existing, as well as those that have passed away - have been of this character. They have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils._

_All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes, and the more peaceable division of their spoils._

I don't know anything specific about the origin of Chicago's recent fois gras ban, but I have no doubt that if one were to dig a little bit under the surface, you'd find that the politicians who voted for it will miraculously change their minds when the restaurants and the farmers scrape together a little money to make it all go away. Either they will have to bribe the politicians into repealing the ban, or bribe them to refrain from enforcing it.

If not, then the politicians at the state level will have their hands out to "fix" this problem.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

You have an active imagination. I imagine there are quite a few people around the world that have a similar attitude to the common American practice of cremation as you have regarding the fricassee. 

But in any event, if you suspected such nefarious practices were afoot, what about those practices would give you the right to enter someone else's property and bust up the joint? 

If you would feel it improper to do the busting-up yourself, what ceremony magically gives you the power to do it through a proxy? 

Besides, if people were to do such things, do you really think that your governmental restrictions would really put a stop to it?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

lol.

Just don't try force-feeding yourself more than two bottles a day! ;-)

Incidentally, I'm intrigued by Phinn's postings, although confess I'll have to dig into some of the sources to gain a perspective. In my naive condition, I've always gone along thinking laws, imperfect or unfair as many are, present the best hope for living civilly. Maybe I've been suckered. Regardless, some interesting discussion here.

Still not eating goose liver though.



Wayfarer said:


> Chuck:
> 
> No one would want to eat my liver, it would taste like Canadian whisky!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> In the U.S. we have laws against eating dogs and horses. Would you do away with those too?
> 
> Let's take it a few steps further. Suppose a religious cult thinks the best way to honor Grandma, who's died a natural death, is to serve her up as a fricassee (with or without fava beans and a nice Chianti). In your opinion, should there be laws against that kind of thing?


Catholics eat human flesh and drink human blood by the millions weekly. They seem to feel it is okay. Also, there have been many religions/cultures throughout history that felt consuming human flesh in ritualistic form honoured the dead.

Does "the U.S." actually have laws against eating dog and horse? I mean, the old cowboy motto was, "Do not name your horse, you might have to eat him one day."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There are local protective ordinances in California against eating dogs. This happened after two men from Asia raised a german shepherd puppy for food and made a mess trying to bludgeon it to death. Horsemeat is not served simply out of custom and abhorance. The considerable equestrian industry's influence and laws passed shutting down transport for slaughter make it a no brainer.That, and the American Beef Council, while wishing fervently for mustang elimination has enough competition from New Zealand lamb, huge factory hog factorys in the Carolinas and Quail season. In New Guinea, Highlanders ( not Wayfarer's clan) actually do perform(ed) the FUNERAL FEAST honouring the dead. By 'consuming' your relative, their collected power was retained in the family, sort of skirting inheritance taxes so to speak.In pre occupied Tibet, a specific caste of men performed The Sky Burial, cutting up your mortal remains and feeding the vultures as a last buddhist gift of compassion. The greatfull vultures reciprocated by periodically pooping on the saffron robes of the monks. In California, nobody really dies. Cosmetic surgery and various swiss injections keeps you looking as young as George Hamilton. Eventually you attain greek godhood with temples at a place called Forest Lawn, where tour busses from Hollywood bring blue haired matrons from De Moines to ask advice from dear Abbey.Meanwhile, overhead the once huge migratory flight paths of geese north and south have been replaced by Snowbirds wandering aimlessly among the yogurt stands.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

It does open up a whole can of worms since different societies have different mores regarding various critters.

My daughter told me in horror about how a friend from school and her mom went into a 'petshop' in asia and picked a cute puppy - no need to explain what came out to them 15 minutes later.

I don't eat frois gras because the process bothers me yet I eat veal and lamb - I have raised birds but not lambs or cows so that is arbitrary and would be hypocritical if I jumped on a soapbox over it I suppose.

LOL... at the end of the day we're all worm food


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Oh.... and if you open a can of worms in Mexico they can deep fat fry'm for you - Gusanos? I think is what they called it at a business dinner once... not bad covered in hot sauce and washed down with a margarita


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> LOL... at the end of the day we're all worm food


Which day?....do you know something we don't...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Law is a natural principle, something we discover.


How do we know it's a natural principle?

Who gets to "discover" it?

What if the law I claim to discover is not the same law you claim do discover? Who decides which of us is correct, and what gives them the authority to do that?

If your answer to any of the above questions is, "I do, " why should your "I do" be entitled to any more weight than mine?

More to the point of the instant discussion, I think it's entirely missing the point to view this as a regulation of dietary practices. The idea of the law is to prevent cruelty to animals by prohibiting people from selling the products resulting from cruel treatment. Do you claim that government has no legitimate authority to prohibit cruelty to animals?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> More to the point of the instant discussion, I think it's entirely missing the point to view this as a regulation of dietary practices. The idea of the law is to prevent cruelty to animals by prohibiting people from selling the products resulting from cruel treatment. Do you claim that government has no legitimate authority to prohibit cruelty to animals?


Your initial point is as relavent to this discussion as the quoted portion. I think some would argue what constitutes cruelty. I don't think its particularly cruel. The geese are force fed and then slaughtered. I don't think the slaughtering is performed in a cruel manner. As to the force feeding how is that cruel?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Your initial point is as relavent to this discussion as the quoted portion. I think some would argue what constitutes cruelty. I don't think its particularly cruel. The geese are force fed and then slaughtered. I don't think the slaughtering is performed in a cruel manner. As to the force feeding how is that cruel?


I think it has to do with the fact that their feet are nailed to a board to keep them stationary - urban legend....hmmmm I wonder?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I'm sure this is pure coincidence, but as Jill and I sit here in the office talking about Frois Gras..

Coco is in the other room saying "Good boy!", "Cocooooooo, I lovvvvvve You!" and now he's making kissing sounds and saying 'Good boy'.

...Coco also eats chicken, go figure.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> More to the point of the instant discussion, I think it's entirely missing the point to view this as a regulation of dietary practices. The idea of the law is to prevent cruelty to animals by prohibiting people from selling the products resulting from cruel treatment. Do you claim that government has no legitimate authority to prohibit cruelty to animals?


Please define "cruelty to animals" for me. A couple summers, as a kid, I worked in a chicken slaughter house part time. There was a big pen of birds ready for "processing". You would grab one, hang it from its feet by two clamps, take your trusty razor blade, slit its throat, and push it down the line. Many of the birds had been de-beaked, i.e. had their beaks ripped off, as they would peck each other in the overly crowded holding pens, or they had been subject to forced feeding.

So you think Tyson's should be put out of business?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> I think it has to do with the fact that their feet are nailed to a board to keep them stationary - urban legend....hmmmm I wonder?


What type of nail would they use to prevent ripping? How about infection, which would stress the liver, the goal of production here. Not to mention the boards and nails would get costly. Me thinks that would be a myth.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I have heard variations of this from several people who grew up in farming environments. Basically they said, more people eat and waste animal products the further removed from the "process" of getting the product they are. Like Wayfarer, one of these people grew up with having to watch the chicken be killed for dinner that night and as a child they remember having a difficult time wanting to eat the chicken. I would imagine less people would eat frois gras, if they had to raise, feed and then kill the duck for the liver.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm not asserting that this treatment constitutes cruelty to animals, but I am suggesting that the impetus for the ban is the judgment that its supporters have made that it does. I am receptive to the argument, but I don't know enough about it to draw a conclusion; on the face of it it seems rather barbaric, but that's probably true of a lot of customs that are foreign to you.

Whether we agree or disagree that this or that particular practice constitutes cruelty to animals, I suspect that we can all imagine some practices that we would all agree are both cruel to animals and serve no purpose other than to inflict suffering on the animal. I can think of cruel children's practices of pulling the wings off flies or burning ants with magnifying glasses, and if these aren't abhorrent enough for you, try applying these same practices to puppies or kittens.

The point of my question to Phinn is whether there is ever a practice that is so cruel to animals that governments can legitimately prohibit it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> How do we know it's a natural principle?


The same way that we know that biology, physics and economics are the study of natural principles.



> Who gets to "discover" it?


We all do. See my signature.



> What if the law I claim to discover is not the same law you claim do discover? Who decides which of us is correct, and what gives them the authority to do that?


We can choose someone to arbitrate our differences. This is a service just like any other.

Through a complicated (but predictable) process, better case-deciding rules will be developed in a voluntary legal system. The more *decentralized* this decision-making process is, the better the results will be. In effect, you end up with a market for judicial rule-making.

It is, for example, how the English common law developed -- the most sound, well-reasoned rules and decisions gained favor and were followed. It wasn't created by one central authority dictating rules for everyone else. The Law Merchant was developed in much the same way.

These bodies of law were so successful and useful that nation-states eventually co-opted them and took them over. These systems started declining in quality immediately thereafter, becoming less efficient and more costly, which is how every government program is destined to turn out.



> If your answer to any of the above questions is, "I do, " why should your "I do" be entitled to any more weight than mine?


It's not. But we seem to have no trouble determining the answers to every other question of natural principle. Sure, there's some debate on the cutting edge, but for the most part, most questions are answered by discussion and debate.

The market for judicial rule-making that I mentioned above is the process for how better rules survive. It is similar to the process of how we get better stereos and better cars in a free market.



> More to the point of the instant discussion, I think it's entirely missing the point to view this as a regulation of dietary practices. The idea of the law is to prevent cruelty to animals by prohibiting people from selling the products resulting from cruel treatment. Do you claim that government has no legitimate authority to prohibit cruelty to animals?


Government has no legitimate authority except what people voluntarily give it.

If you want to end what you see as cruel practices, then you should try to persuade people to voluntarily behave as you would like them to. Disclose the information regarding this cruelty as far and wide as you can. Encourage them to stop eating it. Criticize them for acting contrary to your wishes. Shun them. Refuse to associate with them.

You will succeed depending on the quality of your rhetorical skills and the accuracy of your information.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not asserting that this treatment constitutes cruelty to animals, but I am suggesting that the impetus for the ban is the judgment that its supporters have made that it does. I am receptive to the argument, but I don't know enough about it to draw a conclusion; on the face of it it seems rather barbaric, but that's probably true of a lot of customs that are foreign to you.


Oh, well I think we all know the impetus. Not in question there.



jackmccullough said:


> Whether we agree or disagree that this or that particular practice constitutes cruelty to animals, I suspect that we can all imagine some practices that we would all agree are both cruel to animals and serve no purpose other than to inflict suffering on the animal. I can think of cruel children's practices of pulling the wings off flies or burning ants with magnifying glasses, and if these aren't abhorrent enough for you, try applying these same practices to puppies or kittens.


Wandered off to straw man here.



jackmccullough said:


> The point of my question to Phinn is whether there is ever a practice that is so cruel to animals that governments can legitimately prohibit it.


That is all going to depend upon which ethical metaphysical paradigm you follow. Here is what always befuddles me. Liberals are always asking,"Who are you to judge?" or "Who are we to say what culture is superior?" or similar questions. Given that, no liberal should be able to enforce their paradigm on another or they are being inconsistent with their own standards.

I mean, we can go the Singer route of moral agent to the Kantian route, which holds we owe nothing to animals but how a person treats animals is an insight into the person, to more simple religions that believe you can eat animals but should honour the animal for feeding us (I'm thinking of some northern culture, for instance, that will actually place the bones of a bear in a cairn after eating it). In my world, no good liberal cultural relativist should be able to say squat about any facet of my life, let alone eating foi gras!

I await the _ad hocs_ that is sure to bring.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not asserting that this treatment constitutes cruelty to animals, but I am suggesting that the impetus for the ban is the judgment that its supporters have made that it does.


I am suggesting to you that the impetus for the ban is to function as a precursor to shaking down fois gras producers and restauranteurs for cash.

It also functions as a general rattling of the sword to remind the plebians who's in charge.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't hold out much hope for the animals here. 

But then man's inhumanity to man is doing record business. Even in America, the light of the world in many respects, our values seem more darkly tinged. Recall that Sen. McCain had to move heaven and earth to get George Bush to sign his anti-torture legislation, a measure that would, in fact, help protect U.S. military. And even then, the president left himself an out:



Over and out. 

Be well.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Wandered off to straw man here.QUOTE]
> 
> Not a straw man at all. If the question is how to define something, one way of considering it, to see if there is a definition we can agree on, is to probe the limits. We may not agree on every instance, but there may be some area in the category we can agree on.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Here is what always befuddles me. Liberals are always asking,"Who are you to judge?" or "Who are we to say what culture is superior?" or similar questions. Given that, no liberal should be able to enforce their paradigm on another or they are being inconsistent with their own standards.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't recall every saying that there is no basis to consider one culture to be superior to another, or that the members of one culture are unfit to judge the cultural practices of another. What's more, your comment doesn't apply to liberals in general. Liberalism is not the same as cultural relativism.
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This thread just gets better and better.

While I won for the first "Hitler was a vegetarian" comment, BetieW wins the "Dubya is evil" award for managing to draw Dubya into this and Jack wins, hands down, on the deluded liberal side for the "conservatives opposed efforts" to end apartheid. Yes Jack, no staw men in your house!

Good work guys!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> For instance, you will find that liberals don't support the oppressive aspects of Islamic fundamentalism, or of oppressive cultural practices such as female genital mutilation.


Yet they are fine setting up oppressive systems based on race, gender, and class in Western nations. Go figure.



jackmccullough said:


> It was the liberals of the nineteenth century who were agitating for the abolition of slavery.


Oh please, the liberals of the 19th century have zero in common with today's modern day liberal. Jefferson would weep to find out you just tried to make his intellectual heir Cindy Sheehan and Micheal Moore. And he would laugh until tears ran down his cheek over the OP here.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> I think it has to do with the fact that their feet are nailed to a board to keep them stationary - urban legend....hmmmm I wonder?


I'm by no means an expert however this sounds a bit over the top. This would probably cause so much stress to the animal that it would die prematurely making successful harvesting of the liver questionable.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I don't hold out much hope for the animals here.
> 
> But then man's inhumanity to man is doing record business. Even in America, the light of the world in many respects, our values seem more darkly tinged. Recall that Sen. McCain had to move heaven and earth to get George Bush to sign his anti-torture legislation, a measure that would, in fact, help protect U.S. military. And even then, the president left himself an out:
> 
> ...


The executive should always leave an "out" for himself, or his successor, thereby not curtailing the power of the executive by leaving the interpretation of national security matters in times of crisis in the hands of politicians


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

It wasn't the liberals of the 19th century who promoted abolition of slavery. It was religious groups, such as the Quakers. They were a tiny minority, actually. Most people who opposed slavery at that time did so not for the slaves' benefit but their own. They wanted to end it as a form of unfair competition, which is why the strongest position against the expansion of slavery out of the original Southern states was to preserve the developing Western territories (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.) for "free white labor."

The 19th century predecessors to the modern liberals are not the people who self-identified as "liberal" in the 19th century, but rather the Progressives. The "liberals" of that time period were strong free-market proponents -- liberalizing the economy meant removing various layers of commercial controls and government-sponsored monopolies.

The Progressives, who were just as awful then as they are today, were extremely antagonistic to the idea of a free market, since they wanted to use strong governmental force to do things like exclude blacks from the Western territories. In other words, they wanted a big and powerful government; they simply wanted it to work for _their_ interests rather than for the "moneyed elite," as they called them. Hence, they were big advocates of government-sponsored unionism, price-fixing, wage controls, and other anti-competitive measures.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> lol.
> 
> Just don't try force-feeding yourself more than two bottles a day! ;-)


There would be no need to force feed me if all I had to do all day long was lounge around a pen!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A famous writer for a food magazine vacationed in Madrid. They attended the bullfights and then retired to a famed restaurant. The staff, recognising the writer offered him the exclusive 'Bullfight especial.' Our man accepted, and was presented with two very large, steaming meatballs. He learned by explanation they were the equivelant of Rocky Mountain Oysters and the remains of that afternoon's loser. He enjoyed the meal. Years later he was vacationing in Tijuana and again attended the bullfights. Walking to a local carniceria our man decided to impress his group and requested the Bullfight Especial. The owners looked shocked, which he took to be suprise at his deep knowledge of latin customs. The meal was presented with much signing of the cross. While coffee was being served the owner nervously asked if the meal was acceptable. The writer said, yes, it was delicious, but he was disappointed in the serving size. " Ah,patron, it is sad, so sad. Today, the matador, he lost." Any thread that jumps from tortured geese to Hitler to 19th Quaker activism deserves, no requires a stiff drink, make that a double.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Chuck:
> 
> No one would want to eat my liver, it would taste like Canadian whisky!


Alcohol has exactly the same effect on the liver as excess carbohydrate (the desired outcome of force feeding grain to ducks), namely a fatty liver - steatosis in humans, foie gras in ducks and geese. I wonder if people would object if brandy was used instead of grain.

Aus


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Yet they are fine setting up oppressive systems based on race, gender, and class in Western nations. Go figure.


Go figure, indeed. Or maybe try to steer a bit closer to the truth, maybe with evidence, even.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This thread just gets better and better.
> 
> While I won for the first "Hitler was a vegetarian" comment, BetieW wins the "Dubya is evil" award for managing to draw Dubya into this and Jack wins, hands down, on the deluded liberal side for the "conservatives opposed efforts" to end apartheid. Yes Jack, no staw men in your house!
> 
> Good work guys!


You may not have been involved in the issue at the time, but I was. Remember Reagan's program of "constructive engagement", which meant pretending to try to get South Africa to change while standing by companies who wanted to keep doing business there? It was the divestment movement that created the pressure that brought apartheid down, and it was conservatives who opposed it.

I guess the conservatives of today have no closer relation to reality than those of the 1980's.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You may not have been involved in the issue at the time, but I was. Remember Reagan's program of "constructive engagement", which meant pretending to try to get South Africa to change while standing by companies who wanted to keep doing business there? It was the divestment movement that created the pressure that brought apartheid down, and it was conservatives who opposed it.
> 
> I guess the conservatives of today have no closer relation to reality than those of the 1980's.


Oh how times have changed! Yesterdays liberals are today conservatives and vice versa. Remember where the whole neocon movement came from. Conservatives who did not want to involve themselves in the plight of South Africa were as wrong then as liberals today are when concerning the middle east. It seems that modern liberalism is only in favor of interventions when it serves some humanitarian cause but heaven forbid we do it for the most vital reason of all; national interest.

What if anything I just said have to do with foie gras?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Go figure, indeed. Or maybe try to steer a bit closer to the truth, maybe with evidence, even.


Affirmative action Jack? When an Asian applicant needs to score 3x higher than an hispanic or black for med, law, or b-school, they are being oppressed IMO. I know that is contrary to liberal thought, but I find it sufficient. If you need evidence, it abounds in the state of California that this was indeed the case. Do you not find it funny that the minority population that is the most minority, namely Asians, would thus be stifled? Then again, I have noticed that in liberal circles it is still "okay" to be anti-Asian for some reason. Again, go figure.

That is just one example, no need to fire all my bullets at once.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You may not have been involved in the issue at the time, but I was. Remember Reagan's program of "constructive engagement", which meant pretending to try to get South Africa to change while standing by companies who wanted to keep doing business there? It was the divestment movement that created the pressure that brought apartheid down, and it was conservatives who opposed it.
> 
> I guess the conservatives of today have no closer relation to reality than those of the 1980's.


I hope you are not alluding to me being conservative. If there is one thing I am most certainly not, is "conservative" in the connotation you are using the word.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Oh how times have changed! Yesterdays liberals are today conservatives and vice versa. Remember where the whole neocon movement came from. Conservatives who did not want to involve themselves in the plight of South Africa were as wrong then as liberals today are when concerning the middle east. It seems that modern liberalism is only in favor of interventions when it serves some humanitarian cause but heaven forbid we do it for the most vital reason of all; national interest.
> 
> What if anything I just said have to do with foie gras?


1. Try to stay on track here. The point of message was to refute your claim that I was deluded when I said that conservatives opposed efforts to end apartheid, yet now you appear to concede the point. You at least get credit for recognizing that fact.

2. When concerning the middle east it's pretty clear that liberals are concerned about protecting our national interest. That is why we support efforts to foster some kind of peaceful accommodation between Israel and its neighbors, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and generally oppose the war in Iraq, which has been harmful to the national interest.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 2. When concerning the middle east it's pretty clear that liberals are concerned about protecting our national interest. That is why we support efforts to foster some kind of peaceful accommodation between Israel and its neighbors,


Here's an idea for a peaceful accommodation:

1) Israel will withdraw from the Gaza Heights
2) Israel will withdraw from the West Bank
3) Israel will affirm Palestine's right to self governance
4) Israel will fulfill a unilateral withdrawl from Southern Lebanon even though Hezbollah, pledged to the destruction of Israel, holds sway there.

Yes, if we could just acheive these items, we would have a peaceful accomodation between Israel and its neighbors.....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Years ago I attended LACC Pierce in the San Fernando Valley. I got a student worker job in the demo citrus orchard ( Pierce was founded as an agricultural school for returning WW2 vets.) My friend and supervisor was this longhaired, greybearded, bib overalls and jungle boots version of Tom Bombadill. He had collected through various donations and abandonment a huge gaggle of assorted ducks, geese and two magnificient swans. They were turned out daily to patrol the rows and eat bugs and grass while we moved irrigation pipe and yelled at people not to climb the trees. You haven't lived until a Trumpeter Swan lays it's head trustingly in your lap for petting and impresses a cute persian girl from your lit class. We got word President Reagan would make a campaign visit to the campus. The single phone line since 1946 became 6, albiet at the price of tearing up the lovingly maintained turf at the main entrance that sent it's manager into tears. The surrounding roads on all four sides were retarred and freshly striped. On the appointed day, Ronnie flew in via his helicopter. We were murdering gophers when these two Men In black types replete with headphones, Mac 10s and sunglasses appeared to 'secure the perimeter.' My boss looked UP at the athletic stadium with 3 story walls and asked if they really thought we could lob Meyer lemons, let alone handgrenades blindly that high. The Secret Service agents were not amused, less so when told we had to secure the gaggle safely inside the equippment yard fence. They even 'helped' herd the gaggle, until the female swan turned on one and almost connected with his crotch. We walked out, AND UP the hill to the demonstration arboretum with mature Pines, Eucalyptus and other trees holding several students with binnoculars looking DOWN on the president. Ronnie was splendid, mentioning " I hear you have a pretty good football team." 90% of the audience learned at that moment from the president of the United States we had a football team. This story is utterly irrelevant, except it has geese in it vs israelis, quakers, Adolf, Michael Moore, neo cons, liberals, McCain, GWB and PETA. All we need now is A Gay Pride Parade, Miss September posing as Leda with a swan, assorted GQ male models pimping the latest hot shades of black, ventless dinner jackets with peak lapels, $100 t shirts and NIKE shoes , Cato Kalin and Charo to round things out.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I am not sure what it is about Kav, maybe the way he shares an anecdote, maybe the anecdotes he shares...

...but when I see a long post from Kav I just know I'm gonna laugh my ass off for days because of some image he stuck into the back of my mind.

Not sure if this one will be Kav getting a babe with a swan or the image of a dark suited man stepping in goose crap while getting his crotch grabbed by an angry goose.

No matter, I now have another Kavlovian thought to cause me to laugh out loud in public for no apparent reason, thus making others ponder as to what exactly is wrong with me.

...I blame Kav.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

What's so wrong with talking about Charo?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I always liked Tom B. and his lady, I do believe he was quite Trad.

Hey, no hard feelings on this thread I hope; we wandered far afield from foi gras. I think we should all end this with a round of "Basted in Blood" by Sarah McLachlan for Saturday Night Live and let bygones be bloated fowl livers.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

An update on Chicago, foie gras, special lobster dishes, et al:

https://news.aol.com/topnews/articl...d/20070109165809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

That was a good chuckle. Thanks for the link.

Foi gras anyone?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Foi gras anyone?


Mmmmmm! More "special lobster" please...:icon_smile_wink: :icon_smile_wink:


----------

