While we know you are not Joe Moore (Joe Moore would not be able to bring himself to post in all lower case, and if he is posting in lower case then he's truly lost his mind), Craig is not making a mountain out of a mole hill. He is pointing out unethical behavior on the part of our Alderman who seems to spend a great deal of time on issues that are either not important to the bulk of the community and/or will have no effect. He engages in these activities for what reasons? To pad his resume? To be noticed by the national DNC so he can leverage his current position into something bigger (we, the constituents can only pray he is successful if this is his intention)? It's all so much puffery that does not serve his constituency in any way -- and it is us, Ward 49 taxpayers, who pay his salary and benefits! Saving geese doomed to foie gras hell or demanding that the City Council (again) make their opposition to U.S. military presence in Iraq known to -- who? -- city residents? Our Congresspeople? Senators? They already know this. Spending city time on these activities when we have so many critical issues to face in our wards from gang activity to killings to affordable housing issues is valuable how? And it is serving us, who are paying his salary, in what fashion? How many Rogers Park residents do we think even care about foie gras geese? This is a burning issue to Section 8 housing residents? To those of us fighting the gangs and the litter and the personal property destruction? Even if I cared about foie gras geese (and I'm sorry, but I just don't care) it would be so far down on the list of priorities for this community that I simply can't imagine addressing it any time this decade.
Joe Moore is being unethical in that he is taking a salary and engaging in activity and spending his time on matters that in virtually no way serve the community. If I took my salary and did not do the work my company demands of me but spent my time on things I felt like pursuing then I would get fired for cause which would me no unemployment. Because not doing one's job is considered, by society, as an ethical and moral failing.
Did anyone listen to the alderman on radio 720 this morning? Spike O'Dell and Paul Green had the alderman stumbling all over himself. They even asked him directly how many places in the 49th ward sell frois gras. He said none, that you must be wealthy to afford frois gras.
When asked why he is spending all of his time on useless resolutions that don't help his community, he stuttered for about 45 seconds, and then said he is working against the Daley administration to uphold the Shackman decree.
Regardless, I don't like the precedent this bill would set. Assume for a moment that foie gras is banned. Why shouldn't we ban chicken, beef, buffalo, and the entire process of making the "meat" for a hot dog?
Those animals are often overfed, kept in deplorable conditions, and meet (pun intended) brutal ends.
What about puppy mills? There are likely more puppy mills in Chicago than foie gras restaurants. Some of those puppies are caged for their entire lives until they find homes or are euthanized. We should ban puppy mills! A vote against puppy mills is a vote against puppies (and for the terrorists). Do you want to go back to your ward and explain to the voters why you hate puppies?
Just kidding, just kidding. Anyway, with all the issues we have in our community right now, I can't believe he is still pushing this bill. Stuff like this makes RP look out-of-touch with reality.
Tom - I read that book about three years ago. I need to pull it out again. Remember the chapters about the lack of oversight, deplorable conditions and abuse at meatpacking plants and chicken factories? How is that better than the process of making foie gras? I maintain that it isn't.
Let's take the example of Chicken, and stipulate Scholsser's accounts of the grossly inhumane process many of the factories use when raising and slaughtering chickens.
So, imagine then that Ald. Moore proposes a bill to ban serving chicken at all restaurants in Chicago.
• This does NOTHING to change the conditions of these chickens.
• It does nothing to allow for exceptions if the chickens are treated ethically.
• It does not allow me the decision to buy "organic" chicken or the "Chicken McNuggets" at McDonalds.
I agree with you 100%. This is not a meat eating issue. I'm not saying it is.
What I am saying is that if you ban foie gras because the process of creating the dish is extremely painful to the animal, than chicken, beef, etc. shouldn't be far behind.
"Should Joe be doing this, in this way and at this time?"
No. First of all, this bill does not differentiate in anyway between ethical or unethical treatment of ducks. It simply bans the dish from being served in Chicago. It will do nothing to attack the companies in New York and California that prepare the duck livers in a cruel manner.
"Food animals, while they're all killed at the end of the process, may be treated humanely or inhumanely during their lives."
Once again, I agree. However, I would be more inclined to support this if the Ald. were to propose a law banning the process of tube-feeding ducks or purchasing from any companies using this method to provide foie gras in Chicago restaurants.
Finally, my main objection is that this is not a local issue. I don't want Ald. Moore and my local government wasting time on these issues. This is an issue for the federal government, USDA or even the State government (which has passed a similar law, according to Wed. Chicago Tribune).
I AGREE with the resolution against the war in Iraq. I too want the troops out.
I AGREE the process of making foie gras is inhumane. I would love to see those companies out of business.
However, I don't want my local politicians to waste time on resolutions, statements, and national issues they can't impact. I want my local politicians focused on issues WITHIN the city, and within my ward. I want the street lights fixed. I want the potholes filled. I want the slumlords held accountable. I want to create a better environment for small businesses. I want the cops to work better with the community. Frankly, I don’t want him wasting time with issues like this.
What I would really like is for Ald. Moore to propose a bill that bans grocery and drug stores from "non-compete" clauses that ensure the newly vacated property will not be another grocery store or drug store for another 20 or so years. That would be an interesting debate…
There have been excerpts printed in a variety of publications online. You can get a copy at any Borders, etc. It was a best seller for years. It should be required reading.
An excerpt is printed on the Guardian UK website here:
The guardian is a great place for news about America from an outside (and European) perspective.
You can also rent the documentary "Super-Size Me". It's not as informative, but it is entertaining and raises some troubling questions about how chickens are raised for McDonalds, school lunch programs, obesity, and America's eating habits.
Tom - If people can't get foie gras in Chicago restaurants, it will only lead to people improperly butchering ducks and geese in back-alleys along Morse Ave., at the local Speakeasy, and in black markets that rival those in Tangiers. Just Kidding.
Honestly, I think we're closer on this issue than we appear to be.
We both agree that animal abuse should not be tolerated.
We both agree that meat sold from animals that are abused and mistreated should be banned.
"If there's one flaw in banning foie gras entirely, it's that it doesn't allow people to make braunschweiger from the livers of geese that haven't been tortured."
This is my main point -- not that "meat is murder," always results in torture, and should therefore be banned.
I would be more likely to support this measure if a distinction was made to allow for animals that are not abused in this process (if that's even possible). As it stands, the distinction isn't made in the bill.
The philosophy behind this legislation is that since some/most of the animals are abused in processing this meat, all restaurants should be banned from serving this dish. I think that policy is tremendously short-sighted.
Believe it or not, people ate foie gras before this process was developed, and there are companies that do not tube-feed ducks and geese. A google search turned up a few.
What I'm arguing is that if you support this response, then it would follow that ALL chicken, beef, etc. should all be banned from being served at restaurants because the process SOME of these companies use is a horrible abuse of these animals -- on a massive level far outweighing ducks and geese.
Just as there is no distinction in the foie gras bill, there wouldn't be any distinction made between "organic" free-range chicken or beef and the shit-fed cattle referred to by Schlosser.
I'm sorry, but that philosophy bothers me on many levels. Imagine if that same philosophy was applied across the board: If some of "x" is bad or created in an unethical way, than all of "x" should be banned. The ACLU would be busier fighting laws like that than the PATRIOT Act. That is what I mean when I say I don't like the precedent this legislation sets.
Regardless, I think there are more pressing issues facing Rogers Park. This issue impacts a small number of businesses that sell this product, and an even smaller population that indulges in this "delicacy." I still argue this doesn't impact Rogers Park residents, it doesn't improve our quality of life, and it does nothing to force the companies to change the process of making foie gras.
C'mon. You aren't telling me that this is effective legislation, are you?
This legislation is a waste of time because: 1) the foodie industry has already pulled back on foie gras because many chefs are disturbed by the process; 2) there aren't that many places that serve or sell foie gras; 3) even if the manufacture and sale of foie gras is banned in IL that will not prevent me (or anyone else) from buying it from another state and having shipped here. French restaurants that insist on serving it will still be able to do so, provided they don't charge for it and it doesn't take a genius to figure out at least 10 ways to skirt the bill's provisions.
Most important, spending valuable taxpayer time on this legislation when there are so many other issues of import to Chicago citizenry is a slap in the face to us. Politicians have become increasingly adept and attune to serving special interest groups and their pet projects, particularly those that will get them front page publicity, and the citzenry, too tired from working their day jobs to pay high sales taxes and property taxes, etc. and caring for children or elderly relatives or simply just trying to exist, don't have the energy or time to fight them and call them out for it. Or, we think "well, this bill isn't so bad," and just let it go. So Joe gets his front page publicity, paid for by you and me, and we get foie gras free city but a neighborhood where gangs run free, robberies are committed in broad daylight, children are beat up. What's more important -- humane treatment of only a very few geese or the safety of our city's children? Yes, you have to pick. A legislative body can't attend to everything, and we need to have priorities and focus on them.
As for Fast Food Nation and Super Size Me -- it's important to be critical of everything we read and hear. If you consume 5000 calories a day you will get fat and will end up in an unhealthy place. The documentary fails to point out that the filmmaker was consuming over twice the daily caloric intake a normal person should consume to simply maintain their weight. For the flip side of eating at Micky D's responsibly see, www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/12/mcdonalds.diets.ap/
In our modern age as we have moved further and further away from the farm and food "manufacture" we find the simple act of slaughter and slaughter houses and all that jazz disturbing. Not because it's innately wrong or bad but because it's not of our world. An urban reporter like Eric Schlosser comes along and exposes himself to it and he's outraged. But go talk to people who are in the slaughter and food manufacturing business whether they reside in the U.S. or Holland and they look at you as if you are crazy. Cows were raised to slaughter. Every year I attend the Geauga County Fair (Ohio's oldest county fair) where the 4-H kids enter the animals they've raised in competition only to have said animals sold for someone's dinner. I attend this fair every year to remind myself that our food starts as a cute cuddly creature, that hardworking people tend to these creatures so that I might eat. Go west and as you cruise the highways of Montana and Wyoming you see the cattle being driven to market or in pens, fattening up before they will be shipped. If you are really lucky you'll get off the highway to fill your gas tank next to a slaughter house and you'll hear the wails of animals being killed and smell the stench of their guts as their carcasses are opened. Food prep has never been pretty but that doesn't, by extension, make it bad or evil or wrong. Yes, we want our livestock treated with as much humanity as possible; yes, we want the contents of our food to be healthy but in my estimatation Fast Food Nation is long on hysteria and short on science, filled with faux facts. It's also incredibly political (fast food=Republicans=bad) which is absurd, unnecessarily divisive, and makes the author's contentions suspect. Food should not be a partisan issue (many of Schlosser's contentions reek of socialism, and he seems to have a real issue with capitalism). He lost me with his complaints of the fast food industry's dependence on "cheap" labor in the form of teenagers. My first job was at a Burger King and while it was not a job I wanted for terribly long, BK allowed me to work, be paid a wage for my employ, and learn something about working for a living. It was also an opportunity to figure out that this was not a way I wanted to spend my summers or after school and so I quickly found other employ -- as a nursing assistant at a nursing home. Let's do a book about the nursing home industry's dependence on unskilled, "cheap" labor, and call them on the carpet for it (and other crimes, any number of which I'd be happy to provide). How come no journalist does that book? Well, because they might have to put some family member in one of these homes and they certainly don't want that industry being regulated any more and rates going any higher!
For really compelling reading, try The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek. It's on a more important topic.
From the Chicago Tribune: "[Ald. Joe] Moore said a meeting, probably next month, will allow those against the ordinance another opportunity to speak before the committee votes. If the committee approves the proposal, it would still have to be passed by the whole City Council."
Correct me if I'm wrong on this Tom, but I believe the bill can be amended before it comes out of committee or in the committee of the whole on the council floor unless an "as is" provision is attached to it before it comes out of committee. I'm not sure how it works in Chicago. Anyone?
Regarding "Supersize Me": The lack of corporate responsibility and damning picture of our school lunch program made that movie worthwhile to me. Watching those kids eat Twinkies, Doritos and Pepsi for lunch while school administrators turn a blind eye 50 feet away and deny it is occurring is staggering. I'd be interested to hear what Sally has to say about the school lunch programs in Chicago schools.
All spin aside; there is a glaring lack of corporate honesty and responsibility in the food industry, and almost no oversight from the USDA and Federal Government. That should be alarming to everyone -- republican or democrat.
As for Fast Food Nation: Wanting to unionize fast food workers is far from socialist. After reading about their working conditions, I can't comprehend how firing employees whenever they attempt to unionize is a defensible position for a billion dollar company that provides its employees with no training, no benefits, little hope of advancement, minimum wage.
These companies consistently violate child labor laws and get millions in federal subsidies. Government handouts for billion dollar companies sounds a little socialist, does it not?
Check this out:
In Madison (I grew up there and we had a socialist mayor for as long as I can remember) they recently hiked the minimum wage by $2.60 (over the next 2 years) from $5.15 to $7.75 within the city limits. This was done out of frustration that the State and Federal Governments are too busy taking contributions from fast food companies and others to hike the minimum wage. This is being fought by corporations and “Merchants Associations” to the highest levels of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Madison has seen an influx of poor that work 60-70 hours a week at minimum wage jobs and can't pay their rent. The community decided, after much debate, that something had to be done to raise their standard of living since the government has failed to raise the minimum wage to adjust for standard of living increases, and these billion dollar companies will never raise their salaries.
This, in my mind, was an effective use of City Government taking on a larger State or National issue. It wasn’t an empty gesture. They didn’t pass a resolution saying the minimum wage should be raised. They didn’t ban Foie Gras. They made an impact and effected a meaningful change in the standard of living for a segment of the community largely ignored. Joe’s got the heart and balls to do these kinds of things. I’d love him to direct that energy in the right places and put his fellow Aldermen on the spot.
15 comments:
Hey - what's the context of this?!
Pretty bizarro comment taken on it's own...
I see now- nevermind!
Sorry RP, I didn't direct link this time, I was lazy.
While we know you are not Joe Moore (Joe Moore would not be able to bring himself to post in all lower case, and if he is posting in lower case then he's truly lost his mind), Craig is not making a mountain out of a mole hill. He is pointing out unethical behavior on the part of our Alderman who seems to spend a great deal of time on issues that are either not important to the bulk of the community and/or will have no effect. He engages in these activities for what reasons? To pad his resume? To be noticed by the national DNC so he can leverage his current position into something bigger (we, the constituents can only pray he is successful if this is his intention)? It's all so much puffery that does not serve his constituency in any way -- and it is us, Ward 49 taxpayers, who pay his salary and benefits! Saving geese doomed to foie gras hell or demanding that the City Council (again) make their opposition to U.S. military presence in Iraq known to -- who? -- city residents? Our Congresspeople? Senators? They already know this. Spending city time on these activities when we have so many critical issues to face in our wards from gang activity to killings to affordable housing issues is valuable how? And it is serving us, who are paying his salary, in what fashion? How many Rogers Park residents do we think even care about foie gras geese? This is a burning issue to Section 8 housing residents? To those of us fighting the gangs and the litter and the personal property destruction? Even if I cared about foie gras geese (and I'm sorry, but I just don't care) it would be so far down on the list of priorities for this community that I simply can't imagine addressing it any time this decade.
Joe Moore is being unethical in that he is taking a salary and engaging in activity and spending his time on matters that in virtually no way serve the community. If I took my salary and did not do the work my company demands of me but spent my time on things I felt like pursuing then I would get fired for cause which would me no unemployment. Because not doing one's job is considered, by society, as an ethical and moral failing.
Did anyone listen to the alderman on radio 720 this morning? Spike O'Dell and Paul Green had the alderman stumbling all over himself. They even asked him directly how many places in the 49th ward sell frois gras. He said none, that you must be wealthy to afford frois gras.
When asked why he is spending all of his time on useless resolutions that don't help his community, he stuttered for about 45 seconds, and then said he is working against the Daley administration to uphold the Shackman decree.
Regardless, I don't like the precedent this bill would set. Assume for a moment that foie gras is banned. Why shouldn't we ban chicken, beef, buffalo, and the entire process of making the "meat" for a hot dog?
Those animals are often overfed, kept in deplorable conditions, and meet (pun intended) brutal ends.
What about puppy mills? There are likely more puppy mills in Chicago than foie gras restaurants. Some of those puppies are caged for their entire lives until they find homes or are euthanized. We should ban puppy mills! A vote against puppy mills is a vote against puppies (and for the terrorists). Do you want to go back to your ward and explain to the voters why you hate puppies?
Just kidding, just kidding. Anyway, with all the issues we have in our community right now, I can't believe he is still pushing this bill. Stuff like this makes RP look out-of-touch with reality.
Tom - I read that book about three years ago. I need to pull it out again. Remember the chapters about the lack of oversight, deplorable conditions and abuse at meatpacking plants and chicken factories? How is that better than the process of making foie gras? I maintain that it isn't.
Let's take the example of Chicken, and stipulate Scholsser's accounts of the grossly inhumane process many of the factories use when raising and slaughtering chickens.
So, imagine then that Ald. Moore proposes a bill to ban serving chicken at all restaurants in Chicago.
• This does NOTHING to change the conditions of these chickens.
• It does nothing to allow for exceptions if the chickens are treated ethically.
• It does not allow me the decision to buy "organic" chicken or the "Chicken McNuggets" at McDonalds.
I agree with you 100%. This is not a meat eating issue. I'm not saying it is.
What I am saying is that if you ban foie gras because the process of creating the dish is extremely painful to the animal, than chicken, beef, etc. shouldn't be far behind.
"Should Joe be doing this, in this way and at this time?"
No. First of all, this bill does not differentiate in anyway between ethical or unethical treatment of ducks. It simply bans the dish from being served in Chicago. It will do nothing to attack the companies in New York and California that prepare the duck livers in a cruel manner.
"Food animals, while they're all killed at the end of the process, may be treated humanely or inhumanely during their lives."
Once again, I agree. However, I would be more inclined to support this if the Ald. were to propose a law banning the process of tube-feeding ducks or purchasing from any companies using this method to provide foie gras in Chicago restaurants.
Finally, my main objection is that this is not a local issue. I don't want Ald. Moore and my local government wasting time on these issues. This is an issue for the federal government, USDA or even the State government (which has passed a similar law, according to Wed. Chicago Tribune).
I AGREE with the resolution against the war in Iraq. I too want the troops out.
I AGREE the process of making foie gras is inhumane. I would love to see those companies out of business.
However, I don't want my local politicians to waste time on resolutions, statements, and national issues they can't impact. I want my local politicians focused on issues WITHIN the city, and within my ward. I want the street lights fixed. I want the potholes filled. I want the slumlords held accountable. I want to create a better environment for small businesses. I want the cops to work better with the community. Frankly, I don’t want him wasting time with issues like this.
What I would really like is for Ald. Moore to propose a bill that bans grocery and drug stores from "non-compete" clauses that ensure the newly vacated property will not be another grocery store or drug store for another 20 or so years. That would be an interesting debate…
There have been excerpts printed in a variety of publications online. You can get a copy at any Borders, etc. It was a best seller for years. It should be required reading.
An excerpt is printed on the Guardian UK website here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4166689,00.html
The guardian is a great place for news about America from an outside (and European) perspective.
You can also rent the documentary "Super-Size Me". It's not as informative, but it is entertaining and raises some troubling questions about how chickens are raised for McDonalds, school lunch programs, obesity, and America's eating habits.
Tom - If people can't get foie gras in Chicago restaurants, it will only lead to people improperly butchering ducks and geese in back-alleys along Morse Ave., at the local Speakeasy, and in black markets that rival those in Tangiers. Just Kidding.
Honestly, I think we're closer on this issue than we appear to be.
We both agree that animal abuse should not be tolerated.
We both agree that meat sold from animals that are abused and mistreated should be banned.
"If there's one flaw in banning foie gras entirely, it's that it doesn't allow people to make braunschweiger from the livers of geese that haven't been tortured."
This is my main point -- not that "meat is murder," always results in torture, and should therefore be banned.
I would be more likely to support this measure if a distinction was made to allow for animals that are not abused in this process (if that's even possible). As it stands, the distinction isn't made in the bill.
The philosophy behind this legislation is that since some/most of the animals are abused in processing this meat, all restaurants should be banned from serving this dish. I think that policy is tremendously short-sighted.
Believe it or not, people ate foie gras before this process was developed, and there are companies that do not tube-feed ducks and geese. A google search turned up a few.
What I'm arguing is that if you support this response, then it would follow that ALL chicken, beef, etc. should all be banned from being served at restaurants because the process SOME of these companies use is a horrible abuse of these animals -- on a massive level far outweighing ducks and geese.
Just as there is no distinction in the foie gras bill, there wouldn't be any distinction made between "organic" free-range chicken or beef and the shit-fed cattle referred to by Schlosser.
I'm sorry, but that philosophy bothers me on many levels. Imagine if that same philosophy was applied across the board: If some of "x" is bad or created in an unethical way, than all of "x" should be banned. The ACLU would be busier fighting laws like that than the PATRIOT Act. That is what I mean when I say I don't like the precedent this legislation sets.
Regardless, I think there are more pressing issues facing Rogers Park. This issue impacts a small number of businesses that sell this product, and an even smaller population that indulges in this "delicacy." I still argue this doesn't impact Rogers Park residents, it doesn't improve our quality of life, and it does nothing to force the companies to change the process of making foie gras.
C'mon. You aren't telling me that this is effective legislation, are you?
This legislation is a waste of time because: 1) the foodie industry has already pulled back on foie gras because many chefs are disturbed by the process; 2) there aren't that many places that serve or sell foie gras; 3) even if the manufacture and sale of foie gras is banned in IL that will not prevent me (or anyone else) from buying it from another state and having shipped here. French restaurants that insist on serving it will still be able to do so, provided they don't charge for it and it doesn't take a genius to figure out at least 10 ways to skirt the bill's provisions.
Most important, spending valuable taxpayer time on this legislation when there are so many other issues of import to Chicago citizenry is a slap in the face to us. Politicians have become increasingly adept and attune to serving special interest groups and their pet projects, particularly those that will get them front page publicity, and the citzenry, too tired from working their day jobs to pay high sales taxes and property taxes, etc. and caring for children or elderly relatives or simply just trying to exist, don't have the energy or time to fight them and call them out for it. Or, we think "well, this bill isn't so bad," and just let it go. So Joe gets his front page publicity, paid for by you and me, and we get foie gras free city but a neighborhood where gangs run free, robberies are committed in broad daylight, children are beat up. What's more important -- humane treatment of only a very few geese or the safety of our city's children? Yes, you have to pick. A legislative body can't attend to everything, and we need to have priorities and focus on them.
As for Fast Food Nation and Super Size Me -- it's important to be critical of everything we read and hear. If you consume 5000 calories a day you will get fat and will end up in an unhealthy place. The documentary fails to point out that the filmmaker was consuming over twice the daily caloric intake a normal person should consume to simply maintain their weight. For the flip side of eating at Micky D's responsibly see, www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/12/mcdonalds.diets.ap/
In our modern age as we have moved further and further away from the farm and food "manufacture" we find the simple act of slaughter and slaughter houses and all that jazz disturbing. Not because it's innately wrong or bad but because it's not of our world. An urban reporter like Eric Schlosser comes along and exposes himself to it and he's outraged. But go talk to people who are in the slaughter and food manufacturing business whether they reside in the U.S. or Holland and they look at you as if you are crazy. Cows were raised to slaughter. Every year I attend the Geauga County Fair (Ohio's oldest county fair) where the 4-H kids enter the animals they've raised in competition only to have said animals sold for someone's dinner. I attend this fair every year to remind myself that our food starts as a cute cuddly creature, that hardworking people tend to these creatures so that I might eat. Go west and as you cruise the highways of Montana and Wyoming you see the cattle being driven to market or in pens, fattening up before they will be shipped. If you are really lucky you'll get off the highway to fill your gas tank next to a slaughter house and you'll hear the wails of animals being killed and smell the stench of their guts as their carcasses are opened. Food prep has never been pretty but that doesn't, by extension, make it bad or evil or wrong. Yes, we want our livestock treated with as much humanity as possible; yes, we want the contents of our food to be healthy but in my estimatation Fast Food Nation is long on hysteria and short on science, filled with faux facts. It's also incredibly political (fast food=Republicans=bad) which is absurd, unnecessarily divisive, and makes the author's contentions suspect. Food should not be a partisan issue (many of Schlosser's contentions reek of socialism, and he seems to have a real issue with capitalism). He lost me with his complaints of the fast food industry's dependence on "cheap" labor in the form of teenagers. My first job was at a Burger King and while it was not a job I wanted for terribly long, BK allowed me to work, be paid a wage for my employ, and learn something about working for a living. It was also an opportunity to figure out that this was not a way I wanted to spend my summers or after school and so I quickly found other employ -- as a nursing assistant at a nursing home. Let's do a book about the nursing home industry's dependence on unskilled, "cheap" labor, and call them on the carpet for it (and other crimes, any number of which I'd be happy to provide). How come no journalist does that book? Well, because they might have to put some family member in one of these homes and they certainly don't want that industry being regulated any more and rates going any higher!
For really compelling reading, try The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek. It's on a more important topic.
The committee took no action.
From the Chicago Tribune:
"[Ald. Joe] Moore said a meeting, probably next month, will allow those against the ordinance another opportunity to speak before the committee votes. If the committee approves the proposal, it would still have to be passed by the whole City Council."
Correct me if I'm wrong on this Tom, but I believe the bill can be amended before it comes out of committee or in the committee of the whole on the council floor unless an "as is" provision is attached to it before it comes out of committee. I'm not sure how it works in Chicago. Anyone?
Regarding "Supersize Me": The lack of corporate responsibility and damning picture of our school lunch program made that movie worthwhile to me. Watching those kids eat Twinkies, Doritos and Pepsi for lunch while school administrators turn a blind eye 50 feet away and deny it is occurring is staggering. I'd be interested to hear what Sally has to say about the school lunch programs in Chicago schools.
All spin aside; there is a glaring lack of corporate honesty and responsibility in the food industry, and almost no oversight from the USDA and Federal Government. That should be alarming to everyone -- republican or democrat.
As for Fast Food Nation: Wanting to unionize fast food workers is far from socialist. After reading about their working conditions, I can't comprehend how firing employees whenever they attempt to unionize is a defensible position for a billion dollar company that provides its employees with no training, no benefits, little hope of advancement, minimum wage.
These companies consistently violate child labor laws and get millions in federal subsidies. Government handouts for billion dollar companies sounds a little socialist, does it not?
Check this out:
In Madison (I grew up there and we had a socialist mayor for as long as I can remember) they recently hiked the minimum wage by $2.60 (over the next 2 years) from $5.15 to $7.75 within the city limits. This was done out of frustration that the State and Federal Governments are too busy taking contributions from fast food companies and others to hike the minimum wage. This is being fought by corporations and “Merchants Associations” to the highest levels of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Madison has seen an influx of poor that work 60-70 hours a week at minimum wage jobs and can't pay their rent. The community decided, after much debate, that something had to be done to raise their standard of living since the government has failed to raise the minimum wage to adjust for standard of living increases, and these billion dollar companies will never raise their salaries.
This, in my mind, was an effective use of City Government taking on a larger State or National issue. It wasn’t an empty gesture. They didn’t pass a resolution saying the minimum wage should be raised. They didn’t ban Foie Gras. They made an impact and effected a meaningful change in the standard of living for a segment of the community largely ignored. Joe’s got the heart and balls to do these kinds of things. I’d love him to direct that energy in the right places and put his fellow Aldermen on the spot.
Post a Comment