Is the Democrats' Convention Menu Anti-South?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:04 pm

Gads... I have too much time on my hands just now...another thread...

Still though, this one just made me roll my eyes... I've heard about the politics of food, but this is patently ridiculous..

The Epi-Log on Epicurious.com: Is the Democrats' Convention Menu Anti-South?

Is there an anti-Southern bias to the Democrats' planned menu at the convention in Denver late August?

According to one Denver councilman who was born in North Carolina, there is, foisted on convention-goers by Democratic "food zealots."

The convention host committee denies that there's a ban on fried foods. But ABCNews.com obtained a copy of the catering proposals, including an odd one that specifies how many and which colors of food are supposed to appear on a plate.

Here are some of the requirements:

- No items are to be fried.
- Preference is to be given to vendors with "green" practices.
- At least half the meal must consist of fruits and/or vegetables.'
- Meals be colorful, including at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white. (Garnishes don't count.)
- Seventy percent or more of ingredients must be certified organic and/or grown in Colorado, by precooked weight.
- Seventy percent or more of ingredients must be fresh and not pre-processed, by pre-cooked weight.

Denver Councilman Charlie Brown says the stringent restrictions, especially the fried-food ban, will hurt the Democratic Party's image in the South.

"You can't turn red states blue, especially Southern states, without fried chicken," he says.

Of course, now that's he's raised such a stink about it, hasn't that damage already been done? By him?

Some of the requirements in the proposal certainly seem sound enough, especially for a party that's probably going to tout its plans to save the environment and improve health standards for future generations. But a couple of them definitely border on outlandish. Of course, the real fun starts when someone gets a hold of the GOP's catering requirements and does a side-by-side comparison. Can't you just imagine what the Republican food rules will be?

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:27 pm

Wow...dear god.

The colonel's not invited and all hell is breaking loose. This is...sad.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:38 pm

I tend to find it ridiculous from both sides. In my view diet is a personal choice and it should not be imposed. But equally, if people in the South are actually getting their knickers in a knot over something so trivial, then that is pretty pathetic too.
Of course, I'm not in the US, so I'm less aware of the nuances at work, it's always possible I'm missing something I guess.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:43 pm

So a vote for McCain is a vote for fried chicken, lol?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:48 pm

Claudius wrote:So a vote for McCain is a vote for fried chicken, lol?

McCain Fried Chicken?
Hell, he has a military background, we could probably even stick "colonial" in there too

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:08 pm

Ah, media concern trolls. Where would we be without them worrying about the Obama terrorist dap, Obama's collegiate background, Obama's inability to get down and mud wrestle a large truck driver named Trudy in a Pennsylvania bar? Well, actually, probably much better off.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:13 pm

Any chance of the catering for the GOP convntion being done by this company?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:39 pm

I never ceases to be amazed when following the US media coverage of their presidential campaigns.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:38 am

Xandax wrote:I never ceases to be amazed when following the US media coverage of their presidential campaigns.

I can't speak to Denmark, but the UK, Australia, France, and Italy are pretty high up there in the idiocy ratings, too. We just get a lot more attention because our current ruler is a damaged alien artifact from the planet Wankery.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:42 am

I suppose, to be fair, I'm not sure just how legitimate those speculations are. I mean, the Epicurious website is reliable for lots of great recipes, but I've no idea if they can be trusted with political commentary.

Course, the magazine is owned by Conde Nast, which also publishes Vanity Fair, amongst other things, so who knows.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:23 am

fable wrote:I can't speak to Denmark, but the UK, Australia, France, and Italy are pretty high up there in the idiocy ratings, too. We just get a lot more attention because our current ruler is a damaged alien artifact from the planet Wankery.

A bit unfair to include the French Fable, they weren't stupid enough to play poodle for Dubya anywhere near as much as the UK, Australia and Italy. When it comes to wearing the crown of associated idiocy, then Australia is the outright winner, at least the UK stayed out of 'Nam!

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:40 am

galraen wrote:A bit unfair to include the French Fable, they weren't stupid enough to play poodle for Dubya anywhere near as much as the UK, Australia and Italy.

Agreed... But, what really irked me was the sanctimonious 'holier than thou' attitude exhibited by the French.. as though they are somehow lily pure when it comes to interference abroad.
I don't like hypocrisy, no matter the source, and that attitude rankled.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:07 pm

dragon wench wrote:Agreed... But, what really irked me was the sanctimonious 'holier than thou' attitude exhibited by the French.. as though they are somehow lily pure when it comes to interference abroad.
I don't like hypocrisy, no matter the source, and that attitude rankled.

I can't disagree with that, the reason they didn't get involved wasn't out of any high morality, it was pure self interest. They had very lucrative oil contracts with Sadam, so they were smart to try and stop his downfall, not very ethical, but smart. One could point out it was actually a smart move by Dubya to do what he did, after all those same lucrative oil contracts are now in his and his friends hands, for what is it, 75 years?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:35 pm

galraen wrote:A bit unfair to include the French Fable, they weren't stupid enough to play poodle for Dubya anywhere near as much as the UK, Australia and Italy...

Only I wasn't referring to how the governments of these three declared their fealty to Dubya. I was referring to how their media treated their own respective political leadership campaigns. France definitely belongs in that group.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:17 pm

fable wrote:Only I wasn't referring to how the governments of these three declared their fealty to Dubya. I was referring to how their media treated their own respective political leadership campaigns. France definitely belongs in that group.

I think it's safe to include Denmark as well. In fact, I can't think of many countries that do get excluded from the far upper right corner of the election sillyness vs political stupidity graph - well, except perhaps the ones that don't have elections.