Well, I don’t live in Chicago – haven’t been there in several years, actually, except to change planes at Ohare. As a result, I haven’t been up on what looks like a stylish bit of guerrilla politics – Chicago’s ban on foie gras, due to take effect on August 22.
Now, I like good food, and I like foie gras (though Ms GR likes it more). But producing the stuff (in the traditional way, anyway) requires a rather gruesome force-feeding of the geese whose then overstuffed livers become the delicacy. While it surprised me to see it, it turns out that animal-rights advocates persuaded the Chicago city council to approve the ban. Speaking entirely for myself, this is a sacrifice I’m willing to make for the greater good.
More on what I like about this story below the fold:
::
There’s a lot to like about this story. Much of it rests on the assumption that the people most likely to find the foie gras ban inconvenient or offensive are the people least likely to be major participants here at the Frog Pond. So indulge me, if you would, in the assumption that it’s the RedState crowd that’s most likely to object.
The first thing I like about this situation is that the Republicans’ populist base most likely couldn’t give a shit. Objections to the ban have to sound in their ears like the whining of spoiled children.
So let’s take a look at the foodies’ objections:
“They’re going too far when they’re telling you what to eat, what not to eat,” said Mario Lara, a sales rep who bought a table at a foie gras fundraiser at Cyrano’s Bistrot & Wine Bar. “This is America.”
Sounding more like politicians talking about the Middle East than a piece of meat, enthusiasts voice their concern that foie gras won’t be the last tasty treat to make its way from menu to city ordinance.
Will veal be next? Lobster? And what about that fur coat in the closet?
“Now it becomes a political issue and it becomes a constitutional thing,” said Rick Tramonto, the chef and owner of Tru. “My biggest concern is where it will stop.”
This strikes me as a low-key opportunity. After all, once the chorus reaches full volume, we can just turn it around:
“They’re going too far when they’re telling you what to say, what not to say,” said M—- L—-, a who bought a table at a free speech fundraiser at C——. “This is America.”
Will phone calls be next? Email? And what about that manuscript in the closet?
“Now it becomes a political issue and it becomes a constitutional thing,” said R—- T—–, the editor and owner of T—-. “My biggest concern is where it will stop.”
The message is simple. If activists can organize on constitutional grounds to seek reversal of a ban on foie gras, for Chrissakes, how can you complain if I want to talk to whom I choose in peace?