Had to happen, didn't it? Concerned about alleged cruelty in the force-feeding process, and taking a page from Maude's book of values, Democrats in the state legislature are advancing a bill to ban foie gras production in Washington state, and to ban, by 2012, serving of the delicacy in restaurants here. More in the P-I. Currently no foie gras is produced in our state, although a few discerning restaurants serve it. It remains to be seen if Puget Sound animal rights "activists" will threaten the families of foie-gras friendly chefs, as near San Francisco, or vandalize their restaurants, as in one instance in Chicago.
Puget Sound: Vote with your feet. Hie thee to Crush, or Maximilien.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 15, 2006 03:23 PM | Email ThisWhen Dubya took office in 2001, he also inherited some whack-job, eco-Nazi environmental regs that his predecessor felt so strongly about that he wanted to make sure they didn't take effect on his watch. Instead of passing the torch, he passed a collection of hand grenades with the pins removed.
Liberals never change.
Posted by: TB on January 15, 2006 04:35 PMThe problem is not foie gras--it's the priorities on display.
Posted by: The Plain Truth Of It on January 15, 2006 04:38 PM
These unuseful idiots got all the time of day to worry about foie gras, Salmon extinction, and Killer whale survival, but can they find the time of day to support an unborn human being?
This bill is on the outer fringe of silly --- expect more of these strange perceptions about geese and ducks and chickens -- as our culture gets more urban and isolated from farming.
Among the new-urban youner generation there is no connection at ALL to rural, food production, and completley off target when it comes to the real world and animals. Toy stuffed geese is all they know.
Also, as a pate freak, I love the stuff, enriched with butter and heavy cream, other fowl liver can make excellent pate.
Fois gras is over rated and over priced. Good marketing by the French.
The goofy bill will die a quiet death.
Posted by: George Bakan on January 15, 2006 05:33 PMMLF, now you know why so many of us find so many of your party so abhorrent. They impose their own personal values on the rest of us. If they don't want to eat foie gras, fine. Just don't restrict my choice. Evidently "choice" is only protected when killing unborn children. Think of how absurd, sick and abhorrent this is...to the democrats a goose or duck is worth more legal protection than an unborn child.
A Foie Graw loving liberal. Yep - just one of the common folk!
Posted by: pbj on January 15, 2006 06:04 PMThis means one of two things:
1) There is hope for you yet
or
2) The End Times are upon us
Posted by: Mike H on January 15, 2006 07:46 PMI'm disappointed in you, Matt. You didn't say that this will lead to vote fraud, and you didn't use the word "moonbat." I'll have to have a word with Stefan about this. :-)
Posted by: Ivan on January 15, 2006 08:04 PMthe following are quotes from scotus decisions:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102
"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
so when i challenge this law in court as an unconstitutional abridgment of my freedoms, i'll build my argument around the pursuit of happiness and those scotus decisions. if we have a right to define our own existence, then i define mine as the right to eat what i wish, and any law that restricts that right is unconstitutional. foie gras may not be mentioned in the constitution, but i'll bet we can find some in a penumbra.
this is one of the many problems with the liberals. i don't know where the "evidence" exists that "proves" that the ducks and geese are "tortured." like global warming this "torture" is not based on sound science, rather it is a concept defined by a liberal. their attitude is "i believe, therefore it's true." they undertake these "moral" crusades for lack of anything useful to do. no wonder so many liberals need glasses, they spend all their time doing things that make themselves feel good.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2421
and to my horror, gasp! one of the sponsors, rep. campbell, is a republican! the other eight are dems.
i agree with you (gasp, another agreement between a dem and rep!) that this bill doesn't deserve to get out of committee, but on the committee the dems outnumber the reps 13-10.
we must stop agreeing like this! too much harmony at this level could rip a hole in the universe.
I could care less about foie gras and I would think there are better uses for their time during the session.
On the other hand, since I could care less, if they are busy with this law, they have less time to work on a law that could actually adversely affect me.
I know - me, me, me.
Oh well.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 15, 2006 08:58 PMfirst of all, please don't give the anarchists the names of restaurants that serve foie gras or veal. those places of business will soon be targets of the liberals. the chef's families will become targets of hate, torture, and violence from the left, i.e., the party of tolerance and understanding.
you're absolutely right. first foie gras, then veal, then lobsters, then clams...when will it end? of course it won't, as long as the liberals can find a victim.
after eating animals is banned, the liberals will go after bovine, goat or sheep's milk. good-bye milk. good-bye cheese. good-bye eggs. we've seen peta claim that fishing should be ended because fish feel pain. good bye fish. it's obvious that their goal is to eliminate any animal protein from our diet.
we already see the liberal's knockers twisted (or is that knickers in a twist?) over this issue.
like locked and loaded said, i hope the liberals return to mutual masturbation to feel good, rather than restricting our rights.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 15, 2006 11:59 PMIt won't be long before a bill appears mandating a vegan diet.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2006 12:31 AMYou know, Matthews Cellars in Yakima bottles an excllent Cab-Merlot mix. Exellent suggestion, thanks!
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 16, 2006 01:53 AMWhere do these people come from. Did that space ship that landed Sunday, have any visitors returning with it?
Where is Emeril when we need him - BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM
Posted by: gs on January 16, 2006 02:26 AMWhen they get back Rossi will be in!
Yeeeee Hawwwwww
(sotto voce) But lobster?
...They can have my lobster when they pry it from my cold, dead ...
Jeff B? And how do you know that plants...living things, connected to Mother Gaia after all...don't feel pain? And how are WE to chose what is sufficiently low on the sentience-scale to eat?
/Back to talking to my plants to make them thrive
LOL
Posted by: FlyingTigress on January 16, 2006 02:52 AM"...after eating animals is banned, the liberals will go after bovine, goat or sheep's milk. good-bye milk. good-bye cheese. good-bye eggs."
That's when the ovo-lacto vegetarians will be up in arms.
Posted by: FlyingTigress on January 16, 2006 03:13 AMJimmie's solution? run around naked and sober; a new Spring Break tradition;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on January 16, 2006 06:49 AMObi-Wan sez
"...after eating animals is banned, the liberals will go after bovine, goat or sheep's milk. good-bye milk. good-bye cheese. good-bye eggs."
and
"Jeff B? And how do you know that plants...living things, connected to Mother Gaia after all...don't feel pain? And how are WE to chose what is sufficiently low on the sentience-scale to eat?"
... thereby illustrating the true goal of these wackos: ridding Mamma Earth of those eeeeevvvvviiiil naaaaaasty HUMMANS.
And Queen Christine wonders at her low approval rating?
Posted by: dl on January 16, 2006 10:59 AMReVOTERguy
Posted by: ReVOTERguy on January 16, 2006 07:53 PMMost of us here are also in favor of animal rights. Like the right to be my dinner...
Posted by: Mike H on January 16, 2006 08:32 PMi agree that this is a silly bill. i love foie gras, but only have it about once a year; it's so expensive.
the problem as i see it is not foie gras, per se, it's the idea that the liberals want to restrict our freedoms once again. this time it's under the guise of "torture." sometimes it's "fairness." in any event, a liberal feels guilty about something and proposes to restrict individual liberties.
i was against the anti-smoking ordinance, not because i smoke (i don't) but because i don't want to stop people from enjoying a cigarette if that's what they chose to do. if i don't like a bar or restaurant that allows smoking i will vote with my dollars and frequent those establishments that ban smoking.
with the republican party acting like dems and spending OUR money like they do, i may just leave the party. perhaps i should say that it left me.
so it gets down to individual liberties. pamela anderson is against kfc because of the way they treat chickens. the state of maryland mandates that wal-mart spend 8% on health care. liberals all over our great country are imposing their beliefs under the banner of "fairness." well, i don't that that's "fair."
I guess I am not a "bleeding heart" liberal. Just a hungry one.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 17, 2006 03:59 AMI wonder if we can enlist the help of the animal protection activists to terrorize the election board.
Posted by: SDB on January 17, 2006 08:24 AM