The news you're not supposed to know...

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted Jul 17 2012, 4:50 PM Category: Resistance Source: Bloomberg Print

Foie Gras Goes Underground at California 'Duckeasies'

By Alison Vekshin and James Nash

Viva la resistance! - ChrisOn July 15, about a dozen people walked into a cozy San Francisco restaurant with a window sign reading “private event” to savor foie gras, California’s newest forbidden fruit.

They paid $100 apiece for “a 10-course tasting of quasi- legal goodness,” according to the online notice for the “Duckeasy” event. Each received an e-mail with the address only hours before the first sandwich of Wonder bread, grape jelly and foie gras mousse was served.

"I want to support the people who believe in foie and who will defy the rules," Jolanda Nuestro, 48, a homemaker, said at the communal table before a toast broke out: "To foie!"

"To being force-fed foie!" another guest added.

Two weeks after California's ban on selling and producing the fatty duck liver, chefs are hosting clandestine events, offering it as a free side dish or selling it to regulars without listing it on the menu.

In an unscientific survey, four of eight restaurants visited in the two weeks since the ban offered foie gras. Four that had it on their menus before the ban refused to serve it when asked.

David Rieken, 49, a personal assistant from San Francisco who discovered the Duckeasy dinner through a friend, said he was drawn in part because of its secretive nature.

"I would be lying if I said there wasn't a certain exclusivity that is cool and a defiance against a law that we think is rooted in double standards," Rieken said while sipping a glass of French red wine before dinner.

Read More

Latest Resistance
- Judge Issues Temporary Ban on Arrests For Feeding Homeless
- Citizen Pulls Over Cop, Demands ID, Gets It. Lets Cop Off with Verbal Warning
- D.C. Council Member Recommends Disarming the Police
- Should We Just Follow Orders? Rules of Engagement for Resisting the Police State
- The Death Of James Traficant
- Presence of Armed Citizen Prevented More Death Says Oklahoma County Sheriff
- Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads for Police, Even With Search Warrants
- Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly

Comments 1 - 5 of 5 Add Comment Page 1 of 1

Posted: Jul 18 2012, 7:31 AM

20263 Viva la resistance? Supporting cruelty is hardly revolutionary. It's dime a dozen, wherever you turn. I thought resistance was about trying to create a better world. The freedom to be cruel is not worth fighting for. Certainly not worth supporting.

Posted: Jul 18 2012, 8:34 AM

Jailing people for non-crimes is what's cruel.

Posted: Jul 19 2012, 3:09 AM

70178 it is a crime, the people chose to make it a law. and there's no jail time involved.

Posted: Jul 19 2012, 9:44 AM

"The people" (the government) also chose to make slavery a law, that doesn't make right. Try not paying their "fines" (ransom) and see where you end up.

Posted: Jul 23 2012, 12:29 AM

20263 I agree people shouldn’t be jailed for non-crimes. Far too many people are in jail for misdemeanours or having the audacity of trying to survive. Meanwhile the real criminals amass power and fortune on the backs of the masses, create this living hell, and fund the creation of more oppressive laws.
Jailing people (if that is in the statute) for the ignorance of selling or eating foie gras could fall into that oppressive category. (The people in the article seem to be under the impression that the birds are well treated. Ignorant, but hardly a jailable crime.) But I have no issue with jailing producers of the product, for they full-well know the cruelty of their actions and should pay for it. Nor do I have issue with fining people for selling or consuming it. If for no other purpose than to make it clear we as a society will not tolerate gratuitous selfishness at the expense of another being’s suffering.
Given your personal reaction I’m assuming one of two things 1. You are not aware of the cruelty inherent in Foie Gras production. No shame there as most people aren’t. Ignorance is nothing 15 minutes on Google can’t remedy or 2. You are aware of the cruelty in Foie Gras production and you still support people’s right to produce sell and eat it. If that is case we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I don’t want to create a world where we selectively overlook atrocities under the guise of protecting personal freedom. That’s falling prey to the corporate brainwashing. “Just do it!” “Because you ‘re worth it!” Elevating selfishness to a virtue with no sense of responsibility or accountability. In an ethically mature society we would have no need for such laws. But we are light years away from that utopia. Meanwhile I can tolerate laws penalising morally repulsive actions such as murder, rape and cruelty. Even with these laws in place people are still free to make choices. Produce, sell or eat Foie gras but face the potential consequence of penalties.
There are hundreds of repressive laws, amassing at a terrifying rate. I just don’t think this is one of them. This law is simply forcing people to pay for their act of condoning cruelty. That gets my vote of support.

Comments 1 - 5 of 5 Page 1 of 1

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

A Peace Officer Defies the "Blue Tribe": The Exile of Officer Cariol Horne - 12/19Baby Clings to Life After Flash-Bang Grenade Lands in His Crib - 12/20Cop Stops Fellow Cop From Choking a Handcuffed Man, She Was Then Beaten and Fired - 12/18For Punitive Populists, "Comply or Die" IS The "Law" - 12/19Thieves Yell "Police" Before Invading Home, Shooting and Robbing Resident - 12/18Psychotic Vegas Cop Filmed Beating Man For Filming In Viral Video Queitly Hired By Another Dept. - 12/17Cops Called For Wellness Check Beat Innocent Man, Pile On False Charges; Jury Exonerates, Twice - 12/17Ignorance Is No Excuse for Wrongdoing, Unless You're a Cop - 12/17

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat