Lowering the Bar

Bill Would Make KFC the "Official Picnic Food of Kentucky"

On January 18, Kentucky State Rep. Charles Siler introduced a bill that would designate Kentucky Fried Chicken (specifically, Original Recipe) as the state's "official picnic food."  The provision itself is just one sentence, but the preamble offers some interesting details:

WHEREAS, Harland Sanders opened his first restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky in 1930; and

WHEREAS, Kentucky Governor Ruby Laffoon made Harland Sanders an honorary Kentucky Colonel in recognition of his contributions to the state's cuisine in 1936; and

WHEREAS, Colonel Sanders's "Original Recipe" fried chicken was first cooked in Colonel Sanders's restaurant in 1940; and

WHEREAS, the first "Kentucky Fried Chicken" franchise restaurant selling the Original Recipe chicken was opened in 1952; and

WHEREAS, today, the Original Recipe chicken is sold in more than 11,000 Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in more than 80 countries and territories around the world, bringing recognition and fame to the Commonwealth of Kentucky;

NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1.  A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 2 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

Original Recipe Kentucky Fried Chicken is designated the official picnic food of Kentucky.

The background facts in the "whereas" clauses are a bit of a mixed bag.  It's good to know that KFC actually did get its start in Kentucky, although it's a little disillusioning to learn that Col. Sanders didn't actually serve in the military.

Perhaps predictably, the bill is being opposed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  PETA claims that the chickens KFC serves are abused, even tortured, although it wasn't clear from the report whether PETA claims KFC is the one doing the torturing.  (In a related story, Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to confirm or deny that chickens had been waterboarded, but said that if they were he wasn't sure if that was torture or not anyway).

"If the state legislature moves forward with this one," said PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich, "then they should change Kentucky's state bird from the cardinal to the debeaked, crippled, scalded, diseased, dead chicken."

Link: CBS News
Link: Kentucky State Legislature

Sentence Handed Down in Michigan Pickle-Assault Case

Only a few tantalizing details have emerged to date about the circumstances of this crime, but it is clear that it involved (1) a home invasion, (2) a repeat offender, and (3) pickles.

Bobby Lee Bolen of Buchanan, Michigan, was sentenced on Monday to almost 60 days in jail and one year of probation, after he apparently pleaded guilty to "third-offense home invasion."  This stems from an August incident in which he broke into a house, "got into an argument and threw two large pickles" at the residents.  According to the article, police said it was actually an argument over the pickles, but again, details were not available.

The actual size of the "large pickles" was not reported, but Bolen was actually charged with two counts of assault based on the pickle-flinging, so presumably there was at least some risk involved (although that would not be legally necessary to charge him with assault, I suppose).  Bolen was also charged with home invasion and "cutting or interfering with phone lines," which was not explained but which he may have done in order to isolate his targets and prevent them from calling for help when the gherkins began to fly.

The phone-line and assault charges seem to have been dropped as a result of a plea bargain, but Bolen was sentenced on the home-invasion charge.  He was given credit for time served and so will not do any additional time.

"If this is not the silliest case I've ever seen in this courtroom," said Judge Scott Schofield, "it certainly is in the top ten."  (Judge Schofield, if you happen to read this,  I would very much like to know about the ones that were sillier.)  But, he said, "[t]he fact that it's silly doesn't mean that it's not serious."  It doesn't?

The prosecutor who brought Bolen to justice, Kelly Travis, called the situation "needless," and seemed to still be confused as to why it had happened at all.  "Maybe [Mr. Bolen] can get to the bottom of why he would commit a felony over pickles," Travis said.  He suggested that "anger management" might be in order.

Defense attorney Robert Lutz said alcohol might have played a role.

Link: Detroit Free Press

A Wine So Good It May Turn Your Robbery Into a Group Hug

That might be a good new slogan for Chateau Malescot St. Exupery, a wine so good it helped turn a robbery last week into a group hug.

A group of friends in Washington, D.C., were enjoying steaks, jumbo shrimp, fine cheeses, and a bottle of the Chateau Malescot, when a man wearing a hood burst in. Pointing a gun at the head of a guest, he said “Give me your money, or I’ll start shooting.”  Up to this point, the robbery was proceeding in the traditional manner, but then guest Christina Rowan said, “We were just finishing dinner. Why don’t you have a glass of wine with us?”

Amazingly, he agreed, and sampled the Chateau Malescot St-Exupery.  “Damn, that’s good wine,” he said. After a little more wine, and some Camembert, he had changed his mind.  “I think I may have come to the wrong house,” he said, putting his gun away.  “I’m sorry. Can I get a hug?”

Each guest gave the robber a hug. He had another sip of wine. He evidently felt it had proven to be a wonderful evening of camaraderie, apart from the whole gun-to-the-head thing, generally considered a faux pas.  Before he left his new friends, he asked to bond with them once again: “Can we have a group hug?” he asked.  Hugs obtained, he fled.  The police later found the wine glass, unbroken, in an alley near the home.

Perhaps this outcome is explained by the power of the carefully chosen wine-cheese pairing, something  that should not be underestimated, but I think the Chateau Malescot alone was responsible.  The Malescot (full name: Chateau Malescot St. Exupery Grand Cru Classe en 1855, Margaux), is made from grapes grown near Margaux village in France, in vineyards surrounding a chateau sold in 1697 to Simon Malescot, Esquire, Counsel to Louis XIV.  The chateau was purchased in the 19th century by Count Jean-Baptiste Saint-Exupery, great-grandfather of the writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery, at which time the famous name was added.  The Malescot (assuming it was the 2000) is a powerful and harmonious blended cabernet with fine crimson tints and the flavors of ripe fruit, mocha, and vanilla; its grapes harvested during rainy fall weather and carefully chosen for their calming effect on the American felon.  Wait, I've thought of a better slogan:

Chateau Malescot St. Exupery: Damn, That's Good Wine.

I've contacted the fine people at the Chateau Malescot to suggest that they adopt this slogan in recognition of this incident and in honor of the life-saving abilities of their heroic wine.  I expect to hear back from them shortly.

Link: Washington Post
Link: Chateau Malescot Saint-Exupery

UPDATED: Miami Shooting Reopens Debate Over Condiment Control

According to Miami police, early Tuesday morning the driver of a car in a Wendy's drive-through lane requested a number of chili-sauce packets with his meal.  Ominously, that number was greater than three, the maximum packets per customer allowed by restaurant policy.  When informed of this policy by the drive-through worker, Susan Byrob-Fimon, the customer became angry and demanded more.  Byrob-Fimon refused.  "I told him, I just take the orders and give out the food," she said.  "It wasn't up to me to give him more chili."

But Susan's firm stand was immediately undermined by her superior, Renel Frage, who stepped in at this point to micromanage the negotiations.  And Frage caved almost immediately, grabbing a handful of eight additional packets, for a total of 11.  Still, even with almost four times the authorized maximum number of packets in his bag, the customer was not happy.

This shows the folly of trying to appease a tyrant.  Hitler wasn't satisfied with the Sudetenland, and surrendering on the three-packet policy did not satisfy this guy, either.  (See?  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or something.)  Instead of showing strength by breaking off negotiations, concessions were made.  And, predictably, violence followed.

Frage unwisely stepped outside to talk to the man, believing that he simply did not understand that he already had his extra condiments, and explained to him that he would not be getting more.  Thus he learned an additional lesson: before you decide to stick to your guns, make sure the other guy doesn't actually have guns.  This one did, and he shot Frage in the arm.  "There was blood everywhere," Frage recalled.  And, ironically, "he hadn't even checked the bag."  The only thing worse than condiment violence is senseless condiment violence.

The debate is already raging over how to prevent further incidents like this one.  Some believe that stricter laws are needed to keep guns out of our nation's drive-through lanes altogether.  Others say that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have condiments, and argue that a better solution is to arm all Wendy's workers.  Some instead blame society for its arbitrary rules and restrictive condiment policies, saying that they leave those whose chili-sauce needs are unfulfilled with little choice but violence.  The Bush administration, of course, continues to oppose the distribution of condiments altogether, arguing that abstinence is the best policy.

Meanwhile, the shooter is still on the loose.  He fled after the incident and has not yet been located.  Frage's injuries were not life-threatening.  Presumably, he will receive a medal or bonus of some kind from Wendy's, for risking his life and his $16,000 salary to defend the restaurant's condiment-limitation policies.

Link: AP via SFGate.com
Link: Houston Chronicle

Mexican Restaurant Offers Taco Reward for Info on Break-In

The owner of Melina's Fine Mexican Restaurant, who, strangely, is named "Joe," has offered a reward of 500 tacos for information leading to the arrest of the thief who broke into the restaurant on April 24 and stole $3000.

Joe said he was offering tacos because "all the cash got taken."

500 tacos would feed a person for about two months, if he (and it would be a "he") ate three tacos per meal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Joe noted that, based on the cost of tacos at Melina's Fine Mexican Restaurant, the reward he was offering was worth approximately $1,200.  As a comment to this story on the Houston Chronicle website noted, based on the fact that Melina's Fine Mexican Restaurant is located in Brigham City, Utah, not really known for its fine Mexican cuisine, the reward may in fact be worth significantly less.

Link: Houston Chronicle

Professional Beer Taster Successfully Sues Employer After Becoming An Alcoholic

A judge in Sao Paulo, Brazil, has ruled that a local brewing company must pay damages to one of its former beer tasters, after the taster alleged that his job -- drinking alcohol -- caused him to develop alcoholism.

In the lawsuit, the employee alleged that as part of his beer-tasting job, he was required to taste beer.  Specifically, he said he typically drank between 16 and 25 small glasses of beer during each eight-hour shift, which works out to a little over three pints a day, at least five days a week, for more than a decade.  (He also said he received a bottle of beer after each shift, so let's just call it four pints a day.)

Hard to say whether that is really enough to turn someone into an alcoholic, but the judge accepted the employee's argument that the company did not provide the "health measures needed to keep him from developing alcoholism."  The report did not say what health measures the employee said should have been provided.  The only one I can think of that would work would be to not let him drink on the job, which would sort of put a damper on his career as a beer taster.

Also, the company alleged that the employee was an alcoholic before he ever took the job as a beer taster.  But the judge said the company was still negligent even on those facts, because "an alcoholic should never have been made a beer tester."  So, apparently, if you need a beer taster you should not hire anyone who is an alcoholic, or anyone who is not an alcoholic (because they might become one).  Or, you can hire someone in either category to be a beer taster, as long as you don't let them drink beer on the job.

The real answer, of course, is that somebody who takes a job as a beer taster should be considered to have assumed the not-unforeseeable risk that drinking all day long every day might turn you into an alcoholic.  But in Brazil, this claim earned the taster just under $50,000.  Not enough to retire on, but that'll buy a lot of beer.

Link: Yahoo! News

Libel Suit Against Food Critic Alleges Steak Sandwich Misclassified

Adam Liptak of the New York Times writes today (March 7) about restaurants filing libel lawsuits against food critics.  The lawsuits are not uncommon, although, as Liptak writes, they are virtually never successful.

The most recent example is a new lawsuit against Craig LaBan of the Philadelphia Inquirer, alleging that LaBan's description of the strip steak at Chops restaurant as "miserably tough and fatty" constituted libel.  Chops doesn't challenge that description, but argues that the item being reviewed was not a "strip steak" at all, but rather a "steak sandwich without bread."  This is a different cut of meat, Chops argues, and says LaBan therefore should not have compared it to a strip steak and that he doesn't even know what the strip steak at Chops tastes like.  Or in legal terms, LaBan "had, and has, no personal knowledge of the quality of the Chops strip steak."

Okay -- but he may well have personal knowledge, apparently, that a Chops steak sandwich without bread is miserably tough and fatty.  (His words, not mine.)

Liptak writes that there are numerous examples, at least in American courts, of rulings that even harshly worded reviews are protected opinion.  Some good ones:

• "The fish on the Key West platter tasted like old ski boots."  Ruled obvious hyperbole and not an actual comparison of fish to old ski boots the reviewer had once eaten.
• "Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here."  Ruled to be protected "techniques of humor and ridicule."
• Description of a seafood dish as "Trout a la green plague."  The court: "An ordinarily informed person would not infer that these entrees were actually carriers of communicable diseases."

The article also quotes a legendary review by Matthew Norman of the London Sunday Telegraph Magazine, in 2004, of the London restaurant Shepherds.  His review described Shepherds as "among the very worst restaurants in Christendom," serving "meals of crescendoing monstrosity."  It appears to be one of the few restaurant reviews to compare a dish (the crab and brandy soup) to WMD: "Were it found today in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert," Norman wrote, "it would save Tony Blair's skin."  And for dessert -- the yellowcake?

WARNING: "Welsh Dragon Sausages" May Not Contain Real Dragon

In November, the Trading Standards department for Powys County, Wales, forced a sausage manufacturer to change the label of its "Welsh Dragon"-brand spicy sausage, on the grounds that the label was misleading because the product did not contain real dragon.

It is actually made with pork.

Jon Carthew, owner of the fraudulent sausage maker, Black Mountains Smokery,  said that he had yet to receive any complaints about the absence of real dragon meat in the sausages, and believed that might be an indication that his customers did not think there was dragon meat in the sausages to begin with.  "We use the word because the dragon is synonymous with Wales," he said.  A spokesman for the county council, however, insisted that the product's label "was not sufficiently precise to inform a purchaser of the true nature of the food."  He later told the BBC that the concern was really that vegetarians might eat the sausages thinking that, because the label featured a fictional beast, there was no meat in the sausages at all, but that is the kind of BS that we have all come to expect from the Trading Standards Department for Powys County, Wales, isn't it?

The Times story said that the sausages were to be labeled "Welsh Dragon Pork Sausages" to avoid customer confusion, but the company's website calls them both "Smoked Welsh Dragon Sausage 'Pork'" and just plain "Smoked Welsh Dragon Sausage."

Link: Times Online
Link: Black Mountains Smokery

Judge Rules Burrito Is Not Sandwich

A Massachusetts judge has resolved a long-standing and bitterly disputed legal question by ruling that a burrito is not a sandwich.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the nation been riveted by such a close question, disputed between two such closely matched entities, with so much riding on the outcome. Although had the sandwich not insisted on sighing loudly everytime the burrito said something stupid in the debate, the issue might never have been before a court in the first place.

The dispute arose because the Panera Bread Company's Shrewsbury location has a clause in its lease that prevents the White City Shopping Center from providing space to any other "sandwich shops." In what was either a highly clever exploitation of a legal loophole by talented lawyers or a failure to read the lease, White City signed a lease with Qdoba Mexican Grill. (Considered but rejected at this point: a number of joke analogies to current immigration controversies.) Panera sued to enforce the sandwich-exclusion clause, which placed the issue of what constitutes a "sandwich" squarely before Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke.

"A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas," wrote Judge Locke, since the latter "are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." As I have not yet read the decision itself, the use of the word "choice" may indicate some anti-sandwich bias on the judge's part or it might simply be a description of the evidence, which was extensive. Judge Locke received testimony on the issue from expert witnesses including a Cambridge chef, a "former high-ranking federal agriculture official," and a number of other unnamed "food experts," as well as consulting Webster's Dictionary.

Expert chef Chris Schlesinger may have turned the tide for Qdoba with his dramatic affidavit testimony. "I know of no chef or culinary historian," he stated, "who would call a burrito a sandwich.  Indeed, the notion would be absurd to any credible chef or culinary historian." I doubted there was such a thing as a culinary historian until I remembered France, but this testimony still seemed vulnerable to a counter-affidavit from an incredible chef, but I guess Panera was not able to find one of those. Which is troubling, because the ruling's narrow definition of "sandwich," while providing a bright-line "one-slice-or-two" legal test, simply ignores reality:

   

As you can see, the food item on the right would generally be understood to be a "sandwich," and yet is made with only one slice, a bun or loaf of bread that has been split to allow the filling to be placed within it.  (Okay, I guess you can't see that in this picture but I will put it in my affidavit.) The "single-slice test" therefore is not a valid distinction, ignores the vital issue of the topology of the wrapping, and would lead to absurd results such as there being no distinction between a burrito and a taco. I know of no credible chef or culinary historian who would call a burrito a taco.

So, I assume the ruling will be appealed.  For now, it leaves Qdoba (owned by Jack in the Box Inc.) free to compete with Panera at the White City mall.

Link: AP via SFGate.com

Dashing Diner Wins Verdict in Trial Over $46 Tab

A jury in Pinellas, Florida, recently sided with Lt. Col. Ralph Paul (ret.) after he was prosecuted for not paying a $46 dinner tab.  Mr. Paul had complained after he ordered a "Seafood Saute" and received a dish that he believed was mostly pasta noodles, not seafood.  After various exchanges between Mr. Paul and management, Mr. Paul and his girlfriend left without paying the check.  Restaurant employees took down his license plate and reported him, and Paul was subsequently charged with misdemeanor intent to defraud the restaurant out of the $46.

Probably the government expected a plea bargain, but they did not reckon with Mr. Paul, who strongly disputed what had happened and chose to fight.  In fact, he hired a defense attorney who charges $500 per hour (yes, he went to New York to find a criminal-defense attorney who can bill at that rate), to fight the case involving his dinner tab.

That paid off, as the jury acquitted Paul after a seven-hour trial, having deliberated for less than 30 minutes.  Jurors later said that they did not approve of what Paul had done, but did not believe he had entered the restaurant intending to defraud it, as would have been required to convict.  The upshot was that both Paul and the government spent thousands of dollars in a battle over a $46 dinner.

Community opinion was sharply divided over the case, which became something of a "media frenzy" in Florida.  It might have gone nationwide had Mr. Paul agreed to go on the David Letterman Show as he says he was asked to do, but he maintained (in a three-page letter to the editor he sent a few days into the frenzy) that he never wanted the publicity and was only standing up for what he believed in.

Feel free to add your comments to the several pages of strongly-worded comments posted on the Times's website, including some from Mr. Paul and from the jurors in the case.

Link: St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 4, 2006

Benihana Cleared in Flying-Shrimp Wrongful-Death Case

This week, a jury in Long Island rejected a plaintiff's claim that her husband died as a result of negligence by a shrimp-flinging Benihana chef.

Jacqueline Colaitis testified that her husband Jerry hurt his neck while trying to dodge a steaming-hot shrimp that had been hurled at him by the chef.  Allegedly, the chef (who was never identified) flung the fatal shrimp after he had already beaned two other family members and had been asked to stop.  "Don't you understand?" Mr. Colaitis begged the chef.  "We told you to stop."  But the chef ignored Colaitis and fired another shrimp at him, while laughing maniacally and waving sharp knives at the family in a threatening manner (NOTE: maniacal-laughter and knife-waving details fabricated by me).

According to the plaintiff, Mr. Colaitis wrenched his neck while trying to dodge the shrimp, and developed neck pain as a result.  He eventually underwent two spinal surgeries, and later developed a staph infection and died.  The plaintiff sought $16 million from Benihana, arguing that the chef had started a chain of events that culminated in the decedent's death.

The jury rejected the claim after deliberating for about 20 minutes.  One later said that Benihana diners assumed the risk of injury when they went to the restaurant.  "I suppose there is an inherent danger in food being tossed," said juror Elizabeth Cardito, "but you know that going in."

Benihana's lawyer said the food-tossing was stopped after the lawsuit was filed.

New York Daily News

Why Legal Advice Is Important to Businesses

Mike Bolognue didn't get any legal advice before investing in his new business. And he therefore spent about half a million dollars on his new "Legends Sports Pub and Grille" in northeast Ohio, before learning that he had built his new bar in a dry county.

Since he can't get a liquor license, Bolognue will be using only the "grille" and not the "pub" at least until May, when voters will be deciding whether to allow alcohol sales in the county.

7Online.com