Lion Burgers, Anyone?

I don't understand the whole exotic game animal meat for consumption dealio. Buffalo burgers, ostrich burgers, stuff like that. Does it make it any more of a meal because you're eating something that you wouldn't normally eat? I don't know that it does. And does it really taste SO much better than a regular beef burger or a regular turkey burger? Different? I'd buy that. But better? I don't know. But now I'm afraid that the whole exotic burger deal is trying to one-up itself with an item on the menu at a Sacramento establishment. That's right. The Flaming Grill (which sounds like it would be more apt to be a gay bar than it would a bar and grill) is serving up lion burgers. Wait. What now?

Correct. Lion burgers. Well, not just lion burgers. Because that would be weird. No, they're lion AND antelope burgers. Mostly antelope. So, that should help, right? No. No, it kinda doesn't. Look, I'm not saying that they're disgusting or anything like that. I really don't know. I've never had a lion/antelope burger. (What would that be? Like a lintelope? Sounds fuzzy.) I just don't know that it's necessary, you know? According to KTXL in Sacramento "There are rules and regulations for this type of thing, but the Flaming Grill says it's not breaking any. The business tells FOX40 it can't serve a burger with all lion meat, and it's supply is not imported from another country." Wait. What?

It's not imported from another country? Where, exactly, in the United States do we have all of these lions roaming around that are fit for eating? I was unaware of the lion-as-food populace in this country. Not imported? How is that possible? And even if it is possible, when did this start? You know, all of the extra lions.

Upon further investigation of the Flaming Grill (OK, I went to Yelp) I discovered that the lintelope burger is not all that they serve that would be classified under the weird exotic menu. No, they have other things as well. For example, the yak burger. Made just for those of you with a hankerin' for some yak. Lemme guess. Is that meat not imported from another country either? Just a little Yellowstone poaching, perhaps?

Then there's the alligator burger. I want to know what's the difference between alligator meat and crocodile meat. They seem like they're cousins, yet I never hear of crocodile being on a menu anywhere. And if it was going to be anywhere, I'd have to guess that this place would be it.

There's your buffalo burger. Buffalo, the cousin of the yak. Still edible. Still odd. But it's not as odd as, of course, the llama burger. Behold!

Llama? Who would even think of eating a llama? Why would you want to? They're the spitters, right? Yeah, I don't want spit-laden meat. Llamas look like they're half camel, half ostrich. I'm surprised those aren't on the menu at the Flaming Grill as well! But according to the Yelp-sters, there is kangaroo available on some occasions. (Now, I KNOW that isn't from this country! Explain the kangaroo!)

I'm not bagging on the Flaming Grill, but I really take issue with the whole "exotic food" concept. Most of the time, foods that are considered to be "exotic" were only eaten in the first place because the people who were eating them were starving to death at the time! They would have eaten each other if they could have! It's not like they were looking to do the "exotic" thing at the time. They ate what they could. But when you can eat things that are more plentiful (and normal), shouldn't we just stick with those? Do we really need to be eating llamas? I'm not so sure.

No Soup For You!

Over there at Atlantic City High school in (surprise) Atlantic City, it seems that some of the kids during one of the lunch periods decided to engage in a food fight. According to the Press of Atlantic City, it was "...a cell-phone-coordinated food fight that broke out during a recent lunch period." Cell phone coordinated? Interesting. Well, at least they're getting involved within their own community. That's something. But here's the thing: As a result of said food fight "Cafeteria workers offered students only cheese sandwiches Wednesday and Thursday as punishment". OK. That's an interesting way of handling it, but I can see the point. If they're going to be throwing around stuff like mashed potatoes and mixed fruit, that's going to make a mess. It's going to make a bigger mess than throwing around bread and cheese, that's for sure. So what's the problem? Of course. Some parent is having a complete cow over this.

Meet Bridgitte Reid. Her daughter attends said high school and was present during the lunch period during which said food fight broke out. She says, "It’s a prison meal. They can’t do this.” They can't? Why...why not? I think they can.

According to the article, "Reid was so enraged after her daughter explained what she ate Wednesday, she eventually argued directly with school officials, marched into the cafeteria and snatched one of the cheese sandwiches for evidence of the “crime.” I'm sure this woman is just a peach to have as the parent of a student at that school. Just a peach.

Now, look, I can understand being upset at having to suffer through a group punishment when you weren't actually part of what went on. And Ms. Reid is claiming that her daughter was not part of the cell phone organized food fracas. And I get that. But when things like this happen, don't the ones who get punished along with the ones that were responsible get kind of pissed off at the perpetrators? Isn't that supposed to do something right there? Besides, I can imagine that it would be a little difficult trying to ascertain exactly who participated in a food fight and who did not. Then again, they seemed to know that it was organized via cell phone, so they must have a fairly good idea. Regardless, I don't have a problem with this sort of group consequence.

According to the superintendent of the district, a one Frederick Nickles, "“It’s been the policy of the school board for many years that if there is a food-throwing incident, what occurs is we will supply the basic food requirement. It’s been effective over the years.” Again, that seems reasonable. Sure, it sucks that her daughter happened to be in that group, but as Mr. Nickles says, "It’s unfortunate, but we are more concerned about the general population.” Ah, if only other things, such as learning, were treated in such a manner.

But here's the thing I don't get. Why is Ms. Reid so upset that her daughter was fed a cheese sandwich? I could see if her daughter was paying full price for the school lunch (I almost doubled over with laughter as I typed that, as I don't think that anything other than a subsidized lunch in school these days is even an option) and was expecting something with a bit more, say, substance to it and was handed a cheese sandwich. But due to the craptastic reporting of the story, the article does not delve into whether or not Ms. Reid's daughter was paying for her lunch or not.

The article also does not question Ms. Reid as to why her daughter did not simply bring a lunch to school. I understand not wanting to eat whatever it is that they're serving in the cafeteria. (My high school cafeteria had some awesome grub. We were the first high school in the district to get a milkshake machine. It's hard to complain about a school lunch that consists of a huge piece of pizza and a chocolate shake.) But if you're not going to like it, bring something from home! It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. (And I can bet you that there wouldn't have been any complaining if those plain cheese sandwiches had been grilled.)

But, alas, that thinking was completely lost on Ms. Reid, who asked, "Why should my student be forced to eat this? There’s nothing on this. No mayo, no nothing. It’s disgusting.” Hmm. I'm missing the part in the article where they "forced" your daughter to eat the "disgusting" cheese sandwich. Just because there are no other options to choose from other than nothing does not imply that something is forced upon someone. She doesn't have to eat it. And believe me, not eating one lunch that she does not like is not going to cause any long term health problems, for cryin' out loud. But I'm going to guess from her reaction about her student being "forced" to eat the sandwich that she isn't exactly forking over any cash for her noontime sustenance. Then again, the folks over at WPIX-TV, used the term "forced" in their story and in their headline, once again demonstrating that the media sucks.

People like this amaze me. You know what else amazes me? How Ms. Reid bears a striking resemblance to Urkel.

Taxing And Re-Taxing

It's come to my attention (via FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel on something called Fox and Friends yesterday morning) that states are so damned broke lately that they've taken to the notion that it's a good idea to find new things to tax. Never mind silly ideas like taking a look at what programs could be cut back on. No, the correct thing to do is to continue spending the same amount of money that we are now, even though there isn't enough tax revenue coming in to support that sort of spending, and just find new ways to suck more money out of folks. What a novel thought. And here are some of the novel things that are being taxed across this great (but kinda dim-witted) land of ours.

According to something called Don't Mess With Taxes, in the state of Maine they are taxing blueberries because they need to "...conserve and promote the prosperity and welfare of this State and of the wild blueberry industry of this State by fostering research and extension programs, by supporting the development of promotional opportunities and other activities related to the wild blueberry industry." Uh-huh. That almost sounds believable until you learn that Maine "...produces the most wild blueberries of any state in the U.S. or province in Canada. In fact, the state produces 99 percent of the wild blueberries in the United States." Hmm. Sounds to me like the blueberry industry is doing just fine on its own. It doesn't sound like it needs a whole lot of fostering. It sounds like it has a stranglehold on the North American blueberry industry. But Maine needs cash, so they've slapped a 3/4-cent tax on every pound of blueberries.

Now, over in West Virginia, we're getting really silly. Over there, according to taxfoundation.org, they are taxing Fourth of July staples such as sparklers. And not just sparklers! No, they've added a tax to sparklers, glow worms, snakes (the pyrotechnic, not the reptile), and noisemakers "...which produce a small report designed to surprise the user." What's a "small report" supposed to mean? Like the Penske file or something? Apparently, fireworks are illegal in West Virginia, so they've come up with what they call the "Sparkler and Novelty Registration Fee" for all other items. I don't know who it is that decides what is "novel" or not, nor am I aware of the defining parameters of a "novelty". It's unclear as to what this fee goes to pay for. Other states impose taxes on fireworks and then the proceeds are allotted to firefighters. I don't know that you can do that when you're taxing noisemakers. Maybe the proceeds go toward programs for the deaf. I don't really know.

According to Reuters, the brainless lawmakers who are trying to turn California into some sort of slap-happy utopia are proposing a tax on soda. The tax would be one cent per every teaspoon of sugar that is in the beverage. They claim that this would amount to tax revenue of $1.5 billion dollars a year. So, wait. One cent per teaspoon would equal 150,000,000,000 (that's billion, folks) teaspoons of sugar? That's a lot. Now, never mind that studies have been done that show that when you significantly raise the price of soda that the consumption of soda goes down. And while that's a good thing for health, that's not exactly what your state's economy needs. See, that's the part that all of these lawmakers miss when they're enacting this crap. They figure on the revenue from extra taxes being the same as if people won't be impacted by the tax at all. They don't think that people might cut their consumption of something if it costs more. They don't think that by deliberately increasing the price of something through taxation that it might cause their revenue to actually drop! But for cryin' out loud, keep doing it! God forbid if we cut spending for once. Holy crap. That would be insane.

In the new Health Care Reform Bill which was signed into Health Care Reform Law a week or so ago, there is a tax on tanning salon services. That's right. If you go to a tanning salon, there will now be a 10% tax on whatever it is that you're paying to lie underneath some fluorescent light bulbs so that you can have an unnatural orange-y glow about you. Now, some jackass named Doc Thompson was filling in for Glenn Beck a little while ago and he surmised that he "...would guess that most tanning sessions are from light-skinned Americans." Thus, he claimed that the tax made him "...as a white person, "feel the pain of racism." Hard to say which is more asinine, the tax or Doc Thompson.

And finally, let's go over to Illinois where they appear to have really taken the "tax things in weird ways" concept to a whole new level. Let's say you're looking at ingesting either a delicious Snickers bar (because Snickers satisfies, you know) or a delicious Twix bar (because you can chew it over with Twix). Which one of those choices is not going to be taxed? Yes, they both have chocolate. Yes, they both have caramel. Yes, they're both candy bars. So, the reasonable answer would be that they are both taxed. Not so fast. See, the Illinois tax defines candy as candy if it does "not include items that contain flour or require refrigeration." Soooo....what now? So, because of that completely reasonable line of thinking, a Twix, which does not contain flour, does not get taxed. Neither does a Nestle Crunch, a Kit Kat or the movie theater treat, Twizzlers. But if you're reaching for a Snickers, a Milky Way or some Starburst fruit chews, you're taxed. Starburst have flour? Really? I don't know for sure. I'm just going by what I found over on something called Openline Blog and they seem to know their stuff over there, so I'm going to trust 'em.

See? We're doomed. Doomed.

Reshaping Food In America

To be filed in the category of "We're Too Stupid To Use Common Sense", we have this little gem from the folks over there at Times Online that tells us "Doctors in America call for 'safer' hot dog to prevent child choking deaths." Wait. What now?

Correct. It would seem that in the journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics (I subscribe, do you?), hot dogs are responsible for "...causing nearly one in five food-related choking deaths among young children." Huh. OK. Didn't know. But one in five food-related choking deaths, well, that sounds serious. How many choking deaths are there per year? Let's see...oh, there it is. 77. "Up to 77 children die from choking in America each year" according to the article. One in five of those are choking on a hot dog, so that means that there are about 15 children that die each year from choking on a hot dog. No word on what the other 62 died choking on, but we're just going to focus on the 15 kids out of a country with a population of approximately 300 million. Why does that sound silly to me? Oh, that's right. Probably because it is.

So now what? Well, according to that article, “Food manufacturers should design new foods, and redesign existing foods, including meat products, to avoid shapes, sizes, texture and other characteristics that increase choking risk to children." Wait a minute. Do what now?

Redesign the...the...hot dog?? Like redesign it how exactly? It's a hot dog. There's really kind of only one shape for the damn things. What do they want it to look like? Well, the article (of course) doesn't specify that. They just say that's what should happen. Change it. Is society so dumb that it's come to this?

Wait. Before you answer that, let me hit you with this quote from the article: "...there are no food regulations comparable to those intended to stop children swallowing toys, even though “food is more likely to go into a child’s mouth than a toy.” ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Really?! You don't say?! Food is more likely to go into a child's mouth than a toy is?! Food? Are they sure about that?! For cryin' out loud, we KNOW! We know! You know what else we know that the article felt the need to state? That “stuffing large numbers of marshmallows in the mouth also may increase the risk of choking”. Whaa....?

Are they serious? Yes! Yes, I would imagine that stuffing a ton of marshmallows in your mouth would make it difficult to breathe and that it could possibly make choking more likely! I would also guess that stuffing a large number of, oh, anything in your mouth would increase the risk of choking! What is wrong with people?

Now, mind you that this choking risk is higher for children between the ages of 1 and 5. If you have a kid between the ages of 1 and 5, aren't you cutting up their food for them? Aren't you watching them eat? Aren't you mainly responsible for the well-being of your child? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any child who has ever died due to choking on a piece of food did so at the fault of the parent. That's not it. I'm saying that this shouldn't be something that needs to be regulated. Some things just are what they are!

If I have to hear one more time about some group from somewhere overreacting about something and wanting a complete overhaul of some industry, I might just hang myself. Why can't common sense take care of this? I fear it's because we are out of common sense. And if that's the case, what say we focus on regaining a little bit of that as opposed to turning people into sheep (also known as sheeple) that just follow blindly because they can't think or figure things out for themselves.

Don't Be Poutine the Blame on KFC

Today we're venturing to a KFC located up north in Canada, America's Hat. Even though chain restaurants, especially fast food restaurants, have essentially the same menu no matter where you are (which makes it simply wonderful that you can get Chicken McNuggets when you're in Paris), there are variations on each menu that reflect each culture. Today's alleged culprit is something called poutine.

I, being a Yankee American, had absolutely no idea what poutine is, though from what I have read, it appears to be French fries topped with cheese curd and gravy. (It also appears to be pronounced poo-TIN. I figured I should throw that in there just in case you got a hankerin' for some and didn't want to sound like a fool trying to order some...somewhere.) So...gravy laden cheese fries, eh? I have to tell you that I can't decide if that is ruining a perfectly good plate of cheese fries or if it is creating a heaven on earth sort of delicacy. It's a toss up.

Now, the KFCs up there in America's Hat offer poutine on their menu. And up there at a KFC in Acton, Ontario, a one 15-year old Kendell Lakin had decided to partake in said poutine. So far, so good, right? Right. But then things went slightly awry.

According to the good folks over there at canoe.ca, Ms. Lakin was enjoying her piping hot poutine when she suffered an epileptic seizure and did somewhat of a faceplant in said dish. As a result "...her chin started to blister and her neck appeared red and burned. She went to the hospital and was treated for second-degree burns. Her chin and bottom lip have several large blisters." Wow. That sounds brutal. I'm glad that she's recovering from that incident. Wouldn't it be great if my sad little tale of woe ended here? Sure it would. But you know it doesn't, right? Right.

See, here's the problem: Ms. Lakin's father, a one Lee Lakin, is upset. He's upset at (wait for it) KFC. Why? Well, because they serve their poutine hot, of course. Wait. What now?

Correct. He is angry because the poutine is hot. He claims that "...he’s not after a multi-million dollar lawsuit, he just wants to speak out to warn others and perhaps get the Colonel to turn the temperature down on the cheese and gravy."

Now, below is a close up of the poutine at a KFC as shown to us by the folks over at the I Love Food Blog (picture used without permission, but without malice either). I'm really not thinking that this looks disgusting, but if it were cold, I'd think exactly that. Poutine is clearly made to be eaten hot. It's a hot dish. How do I know this? I know this because French fries are meant to be eaten hot. Gravy is meant to be eaten hot. Melted cheese needs to be hot in order to get that melted quality that makes the melted cheese what it is (that being melted). There's a plethora of heat that is needed to make this dish. That is obvious. What is not obvious is what in the world is wrong with Mr. Lakin.

Perhaps this quote from the aforementioned Mr. Lakin will help us figure it out. He said, "I’m not looking for $10 million. ’m looking for someone to stand up and say, ‘We’re sorry Mr. Lakin, we’re sorry Kendell. We want to make this right and hey everybody this food is hot.’" Hmmm. No. No, that didn't help me sort through this at all.

"Hey everybody this food is hot"? That's what he wants? He didn't know that there was hot food at a KFC?! I'm going to take umbrage at that statement (basically because it's rare that I get to take any umbrage at all anymore, so when I see a chance for umbrage, I jump at it). He knew there was hot food at the KFC. His daughter knew there was hot food at the KFC. The only thing that no one could have possibly known at that KFC was that his daughter was going to have a seizure. And I've got news for Mr. Lakin. There's no way that one can predict when a seizure is going to happen. It's going to happen whenever it wants to regardless as to the temperature of the food in front of the person having the seizure.

Mr. Lakin took his concerns to that particular KFC. He states: "One comment the manager said to me was, ‘The poutine comes in frozen so we really have to heat it up.' KFC needs to figure out how to make this poutine without burning people." KFC already HAS figured out how to make the poutine without burning people! They put it in a cup! They give folks a spork if they want one! (And who doesn't want a spork?) They don't ladle it, piping hot, into the bare hands of the restaurant's patrons! They don't force patrons to eat it out of the cup like a sow at a trough! They've got that one covered, Mr. Lakin!

Immediately following the inexplicable statement above, Mr. Lakin said, "You’ve got hot gravy and hot cheese, two really hot elements in there.” YES! Yes you DO! (Whew! For a minute there, I thought this guy was a complete moron. Oh, wait a minute. He's still blaming the hot poutine for burning his daughter when she had a seizure. Never mind. I'd like to retract that part about him not being a complete moron. Thanks.) You have two really hot elements that are going to burn anyone who touches their mortal flesh to them! That's why you see all of those folks blowing on food at virtually every restaurant establishment that serves food that isn't cold! It's to avoid the burns! We know that! We know about the "two really hot elements"!

What if she hadn't dove into the poutine? What if instead she ended up falling down and hitting her head on the concrete floor? Are you going to go around warning people that concrete is a very solid material and that people should be aware that if you fall and hit your head on the floor that it's going to hurt and is possibly going to injure you? I don't think that you are and do you know why I think that? Because it would be asinine, that's why! And acting like it was the fault of either the KFC or the poutine itself that your daughter got burned is just laughable.

Must I really state the obvious and say that it is not the fault of the KFC that Mr. Lakin's daughter was burned after she went face first in the poutine during an unpredictable epileptic seizure?! Really? The nature of hot food is that it's hot! The nature of a seizure is that it's a seizure! Let's try and put this in a different context (and let's also try not to sound like a complete ass while doing so). but if Mr. Lakin's daughter is prone to seizures, why isn't it her responsibility to only eat food that is cold in case this sort of incident happens again? Because that would be what? Ridiculous, that is correct. But if it weren't so ridiculous, wouldn't the argument be that eating only foods that were cold would be her way of taking responsibility for herself and her condition? Where is the responsibility of the individual in this story?! Oh, that's right. It's missing. Morons.

Wait! Just one more angle! Let's say that this moron is correct and that there should be a label or a sign or a talking dog (which would be kind of cool, really) that says that the hot food is, in fact, hot. Explain to me what effect that is going to have when someone has a seizure and goes face first into the hot food? The hot food that they knew was hot? (You know, because of the talking dog and all.) That's right! It's not going to have any effect. AT ALL!

Come on, sir! Just because something bad and/or unfortunate happens to someone, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to be blamed. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is at fault. That's why some occurrences are called (wait for it) accidents! Sir, if you want to go around spouting some sort of message, how about you make it what to do in case you're around someone who has a seizure? At least that might do some good! But going around telling everyone that hot food is actually hot? Well, that seems like a waste of time on many levels. Stick to seizure awareness. People will hate you less.