Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the society.

Photo

Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 1


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
575 replies to this topic

#61 SWoodyWhite

SWoodyWhite
  • participating member
  • 326 posts
  • Location:Rehoboth Beach, DE. (Formerly from CA.)

Posted 19 September 2003 - 08:49 PM

Jinmyo, by my count you have made three requests in this thread for RB to defend himself.  What if he doesn't?  Can we next expect some gloating, a la Bill O'Reilly, that because he hasn't responded therefor any and all allegations must be true?

One public request should have been enough, perhaps with a personal off-site invitation as a follow-up.

I'm sorry to have offended by repeating those invitations. They were primarily intended to be humourous references to the fact that regardless of what my own (as yet uninformed and primarily hyperbolic) opinion might be, ultimately it is up to Rick Bayless to know what this endorsement meant or did not mean to him.

For the sake of the outrageous title I gave to this piece in the Weekend Update (for which I compose extreme and often "fairly unbalanced" titles), I've made a few comments in a similiar vein here.

For the record:

Chef Bayless Might Or Might Not Be A Shameless Lying Pimp. Only he knows for sure.

But I do know I would be were I in his clogs having Done This Deed.

Good night Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea. Bon chance.

Now, let's see here. By my dictionary, shameless means "insensible to disgrace." Lying means "to make untrue statements with the intent to deceive." A pimp is someone, usually a man, who solicits clients for prostitutes.

The proper use of the first word, in this case, hinges on whether or not there is any true disgrace involved, and is therefor subjective. However, there can be no subjectivity in the accusation of lying, and there is no evidence as to Mr. Bayless being dishonest here. As for his being a pimp, we can assume that Burger King asked Mr. Bayless to sample the product before endorsing it. Either the use of the word "pimp" is incorrect ("shill" strikes me as more accurate), or Mr. Bayless has a great deal of explaining to do to Mrs. Bayless.

As it stands, the front page of this site currently contains a highly negative declarative statement about Mr. Bayless. I don't see how he owes anyone an explanation for his frankly innocuous actions.
We'll not discriminate great from small.
No, we'll serve anyone - meaning anyone -
And to anyone at all!

#62 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 19 September 2003 - 09:20 PM

Woody: not trying to pick on you specifically; just trying to use your post as a reference point for explaining the TDG editorial position on this.

The first three headlines in the Weekend Update are:

"Chef Rick Bayless Becomes Shameless Lying Pimp"

"World Doomed. It's Too Late. No Where To Run."

"Grocery Store Hos"

So let me throw out another definition or two (both Merriam Webster):

Satire: "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly"

Sarcasm: "a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual"

Given the aforementioned context, not to mention the fact that anybody who reads TDG generally and the Weekend Update specifically on a regular basis knows that the publication is rife with satire, sarcasm, irony, etc., I don't think it's accurate to say that "Chef Rick Bayless Becomes Shameless Lying Pimp" is a "highly negative declarative statement." It is, rather, a highly sarcastic, satirical statement.

If anybody wants to read the declawed, non-judgmental, unironic, accepting version of the story, direct your attention to the standard sources, to wit The Miami Herald, The Washington Post, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. If you want to see something with teeth, look here. Rick Bayless is getting plenty of money, I'm sure, for this endorsement. That's fine. I'd take the money and give the endorsement too. I'd fully expect people to attack me for it and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Let's put this in perspective a few different ways: First, as mentioned above, this needs to be seen against the context of TDG, the Weekend Update, and the way Jinmyo does these headlines. Second, a "star chef" has endorsed a Burger King sandwich, and while I'll be the first to defend his right to do so and while I'll also be the first to admit that the sandwich could be good, I'm not so naive as to think this won't raise a few journalistic eyebrows and indeed I'd think it bizarre if such an action went unquestioned. Because overall, Burger King sucks. Even to someone like me who is overall sympathetic to chain and convenience food, Burger King sucks. In my opinion it is, overall, significantly worse than McDonald's. And that's pretty low. If an eminent neurosurgeon started doing ads for some questionable herbal remedy and his defense was, well, yeah it sucks but it's a step in the right direction, he'd get raked over the coals in the media and he'd deserve it. (Miami Herald: ''I'm not normally a fast-food kind of person,'' Bayless said during a phone interview. "But I think this is a step in the right direction. It's healthier, fresher-tasting and much less processed.'') Third, welcome to the world of irreverent journalism ala Salon, Slate, and Wired. Examples of some Salon article titles: "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam," "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Media Circus | Unspun: Pimps without portfolio." Example of some Wired article text: "Journalists in this country need to strap on their balls and quit clinging to the lab coats of the lying "objectivists" and their pretenses of "neutrality."" "As usual, the film industry has adopted a policy of lying to the public, and is hoping that no one notices."

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#63 Bux

Bux
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 12,211 posts
  • Location:New York City

Posted 19 September 2003 - 10:18 PM

I'm just surprised more people aren't equally upset at the fact the world is doomed. It will be interesting to hear exactly what Bayless has to say about the sandwich, assuming the world will last long enough for me to get that chance.
Robert Buxbaum
WorldTable
Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.
My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

#64 KatieLoeb

KatieLoeb
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 9,156 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 September 2003 - 10:47 PM

Katie, Rick Bayless is a 'Professional' !!
This 'bullshit double standard' is something always bothering me.

Why is this term always and only granted to Doctors and Lawyers ?

I have been and still am (although retired) a "Professional Chef"

Give me slack or tighten the rein. Enlighten me, please.

You've utterly misunderstood me. I'm on your side. As a Food & Beverage Professional myself, I completely agree that Chefs like Mr. Bayless and yourself and many other hard working souls are absolutely Professionals. However, the fact remains that there exists a double standard both in the public and even amongst Food Professionals themselves that "creative types", be they artists, chefs, musicians or whatever, are somehow less "deserving" of the term "professional" than someone with a graduate degree in a "white collar" job. Everyone is so ready to jump on the artist as a "sell-out" or a "pimp" for trying to maximize their income, public notariety, family security, etc. Why? My previous example holds. Why is a chef that endorses a product (as long as they aren't TOTALLY lying about it) more of a sellout than the diet doctor or the high profile Court TV attorney? Chefs and other upper level managers in the food & beverage industry work incredibly long hours, often six or seven days a week, under incredibly stressful conditions. No nice offices, no fancy desks, no long payroll of administrative assistance under them, often no big fat benefits packages and few "perks". I would undoubtedly make more money as a cost accountant for a corporation of equivalent size and sales revenue in another industry, yet I continue to work in the restaurant industry. Why? Because I love it, it brings me great joy, and I wouldn't get to work with wine and food or see my ideas impact revenue in quite such a causal and quantifiable manner if I were counting widgets, that's why. So the green eyed monster rears it's head, or the resentment that might be barely contained comes out and people are quick to call the "Artist Professional" a sell-out because they have some ridiculous notion that creative people somehow have different needs than professionals with higher education that have to pass some sort of difficult exam to practice their profession. I can't think of anyone that would be upset at having some huge deep-pocketed corporation come knocking on their door with a fat check with lots of zeros at the end of it and ask them to endorse some product that they would seem to have some level of expertise about. Anyone that says otherwise is simply lying to themselves (and everyone else) and has a very over-onflated sense of self-righteousness. "No thanks. I'd rather wear a crown of thorns and keep my 'integrity', but I won't be able to send my children to college or retire eventually. I'll have to work until my dying day, but I'll die proud."

Spare me. :rolleyes:

Make more sense now?

Katie M. Loeb
Booze Muse, Spiritual Advisor

Author: Shake, Stir, Pour:Fresh Homegrown Cocktails

Cheers!
Bartendrix,Intoxicologist, Beverage Consultant, Philadelphia, PA
Captain Liberty of the Good Varietals, Aphrodite of Alcohol


#65 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 20 September 2003 - 02:24 AM

Katie (and Peter), do you not think there's a categorical difference (several differences, really) between pursuit of the arts and pursuit of the professions? Unless you're going to reduce and level the meaning of "professional" to how they used to define it in the Olympics -- as in, a professional athlete (or anything else) is anyone who gets paid to do anything -- I think it's illogical to try to say there's no difference between being, on the one hand, a doctor or lawyer, and, on the other hand, being a painter, sculptor, musician, or chef (note even that last grouping is questionable, as many would seek to distinguish art from craft). Having different expectations of different types of people based on their career choices isn't by definition a "double standard," nor do those varying expectations deny that all these options are careers with professional aspects to them (the artist must engage in time management, sell works, etc., to survive -- it's not all living off NEA grants). It's too easy to throw that terminology around anytime anybody makes a distinction between two categories of people, but it loses its meaning unless it is reserved for instances of outright hypocrisy and attempts to subjugate a group (like women) by holding its members (especially when membership is genetic or otherwise inevitable) to a stricter moral code (such as sexual) than another group (like men). There are in my opinion significant differences between creatives and professionals, which isn't to say creatives are "unprofessional" -- that would be a different use of the word and one has to realize there are several definitions in order to make sense of it.

Especially when you start looking at the top people in a given line of work, the expectations are justifiably different. Nobody looks to a top cardiac surgeon to be a tastemaker. That person is expected to perform complex surgery on people's hearts, and perhaps to conduct research and experimentation that will eventually result in new and improved procedures to do the same. But to any artist, that cardiac surgeon (and the similarly situated lawyer or other professional) is simply what's known as a customer. Whereas, a top chef -- especially a "star chef" with an ambitious public career plan that includes TV shows, consulting gigs, multiple restaurants, endorsements, etc. -- is absolutely a tastemaker, figuratively and literally. That's the whole point of choosing that career path. And the star chef's stock-in-trade is his or her credibility and reputation as a tastemaker. Otherwise there would be no chefs on the Food Network; they would just hire actors to play chefs.

But I don't even think, putting all that aside, we're looking at a double standard here. Many people -- most people, I'd guess -- are a lot more offended by the commercial/capitalist aspect of medicine or law than they are by the commercial aspect of cuisine. I know of lots of countries that have socialized medicine, but none that have socialized cuisine. And across all career lines, most anybody who's good at something has a reputation to protect. I think an eminent doctor would rightly lose respect for endorsing an inferior medical product, just as a chef would and should lose respect for endorsing a food item that tastes like crap.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Bayless if Burger King had called up and said, hey, chef, we're trying to make a food item that doesn't suck. Let us give you a consulting fee and you come into our test kitchen for a few days. We'll give you parameters such as cost and available ingredients, and you'll come up with a Mexican-type sandwich for us that you'll be willing to endorse. But from what I've been able to find in the newspaper reports thus far, that is simply not what happened. Rather, it seems "Burger King hastily arranged the endorsement of celebrity chef Rick Bayless of Chicago, who has won top culinary awards for his Mexican cuisine. He will promote the sandwiches in a commercial, and may even dabble in Burger King's test kitchen." (Washington Post, see link in my previous post.) Well, you know what? Rick Bayless created value for himslef by winning those "top culinary awards for his Mexican cuisine" (which came, presumably, in recognition of his talent and reputation). Burger King recognizes that value. And Rick Bayless, it seems, has decided to outright sell some of that value for cash on the barrelhead. That's his right, and perhaps most people would do the same. But there's no point in denying what seems to have happened. You can't have your quesadilla and eat it too. When you sell your reputation, you don't also get to keep it.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#66 Richard Kilgore

Richard Kilgore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,378 posts
  • Location:home, home on the range....

Posted 20 September 2003 - 03:04 AM

When you sell your reputation, you don't also get to keep it.


Rick Bayless? Oh yeah! He's that Burger King Chef.

#67 Basildog

Basildog
  • participating member
  • 2,081 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 03:33 AM

When you sell your reputation, you don't also get to keep it.


Rick Bayless? Oh yeah! He's that Burger King Chef.

I'm in the UK, so thats all i know about this guys reputation...he sells burgers.

#68 Andy Lynes

Andy Lynes
  • participating member
  • 7,462 posts
  • Location:Brighton, UK

Posted 20 September 2003 - 04:18 AM

Here's the lowdown.

#69 Jinmyo

Jinmyo
  • participating member
  • 9,879 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON, Canada

Posted 20 September 2003 - 04:33 AM

A chef sells not only food that tastes good but his or her sense of taste and style.
"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

#70 Peter B Wolf

Peter B Wolf
  • participating member
  • 1,056 posts
  • Location:Chicopee Massachusetts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 06:22 AM

Steve and Katie,
to only clarify my point I was trying to make.
I completely agree with both of you and really do understand your points.

It is just the ‘usage’ (misusage? or common use?) of a word in the English language (and words in other languages as well) that I seem to be picking on. Steve your quote:

“……to reduce and level the meaning of "professional"…… “

My question, first who or what elevated ( in order to reduce it) the word ‘professional’ to it’s level as it is commonly understood in English (or rather stands for in it’s context of ‘Doctor/Lawyer’) Second, why would the meaning be ‘reduced’ if used by others?

Webster does not single this out. (unless one goes to the root ‘profession’; to quote Webster: “The body of qualified persons of a specific occupation or field”)
So, the doctors and lawyers ‘grabbed’ it ?
Look at any classified ad page in your local paper, under Professionals, that’s what’s being looked for. All others are ‘also ran’

But yes, this reminds me of (see quote above: ‘and words in other languages as well’), Germans use the word “Akademiker” (N) referring to a Doctor or other “Professional” the same way. Although, one that attends any ‘Academy’ (or for that matter any University) does not become an ‘Akademiker’ automatically.

What do I know? I don’t even have a High School diploma. Plus, as always: I stand corrected.
Peter

#71 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 20 September 2003 - 06:38 AM

Well, just to really annoy you Peter, here's the definition in US federal law of a professional employee:

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE - Any employee engaged in work predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Merriam-Webster doesn't cut this way, but American Heritage does. The first definition in AmH is:

Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.


Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#72 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 20 September 2003 - 07:08 AM

A chef sells not only food that tastes good but his or her sense of taste and style.

That's certainly true in this context, where the chef has an audience far beyond the subset of the population that could ever reasonably be expected to dine in his restaurants.

If a chef has a single restaurant, and all he does is cooks there, I only care about the food that comes out (and the service and such that I get at the restaurant). As long as the food tastes good, I don't care if his home is decorated with black velvet paintings of Elvis and if he subsists on a diet of Fritos and Lipton's sour-cream-and-onion dip because he likes that better than the fancy-schmancy food he cooks for a living. There's a point at which, regardless of food quality, I wouldn't support a raging pedophile or anti-semite or whatever, but on the whole I don't really care what a standard-issue restaurant chef does or thinks as long as he's putting out good food.

But when a chef starts writing books, going on TV, and otherwise injects himself into the larger media world where celebrity is a commodity, he's no longer selling food. It's not likely that even 1% of his audience will ever eat his food, or at least not the restaurant food that reflects his best work. It's in that kind of celebrity/public-eye situation where I think it's correct to say that insofar as the overwhelming majority of the audience is concerned a chef does not sell food that tastes good but, rather, sells only his or her sense of taste and style. Or lack thereof.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#73 Peter B Wolf

Peter B Wolf
  • participating member
  • 1,056 posts
  • Location:Chicopee Massachusetts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 07:10 AM

Oh well, laugh at me, just not 'again' me. :huh: :shock: :laugh:
Peter

#74 Malcolm

Malcolm
  • legacy participant
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Republic of Texas

Posted 20 September 2003 - 07:51 AM

Well, just to really annoy you Peter, here's the definition in US federal law of a professional employee:

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE - Any employee engaged in work predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes.


And who "wrote" US Federal "law?" Lawyers.
Ahhh, hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.

Anyone who is an expert in their field to the extent that people are willing to pay for that expertise (chefs, artists, musicians, songwriters, etc) are indeed professionals.
Never trust the government for a definition or anything else.
:cool:

#75 Janedujour

Janedujour
  • participating member
  • 195 posts
  • Location:Oxford, CT

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:05 AM

Just got the October/November isse of Mother Earth News.
Page 62 is a big fat photo of Bayless and an organic gardener from Wisconsin examining mesclun mix accompanied by an .article titled "From Farms to Five Stars".
Will read whole article later after I clean my contact lenses. I DOUBT if BK deal is mentioned!
Wil let you know. Ciao
JANE

#76 bourdain

bourdain
  • participating member
  • 759 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:24 AM

There is no explanation. There is no defense.
This goof doesn´t have enough money? He`s gotta pimp for the Evil Empire?
In one stroke he´s negated everything he´s ever said, everything he ever claimed to stand for.
Next he´ll be doing lap dances at corpórate functions
abourdain

#77 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:31 AM

What if the BK support includes charitable contributions for some of these other Bayless interests like Chef's Collaborative?


This is like saying "What if Philip Morris gives some of its profits to the EPA?"

Sorry, I consider it selling out, plain and simple. The affiliation with Chefs Collaborative is a huge one (Bayless is on the board of overseers), and Burger King is the anti-Christ of their values.

"Chefs Collaborative is a national network of more than 1,000 members of the food community who promote sustainable cuisine by celebrating the joys of local, seasonal, and artisanal cooking."

The charter drafted the year of Bayless's chairmanship states:

We, the undersigned, acknowledging our leadership (emphasis mine) in the celebration of the pleasures of food, and recognizing the impact of food choices on our collective personal health, on the vitality of cultures and on the integrity of the global environment, affirm the following principles.

1. Food is fundamental to life. It nourishes us in body and soul, and the sharing of food immeasurably enriches our sense of community.

2. Good, safe, wholesome food is a basic human right.

3. Society has the obligation to make good, pure food affordable and accessible to all.

4. Good food begins with unpolluted air, land and water, environmentally sustainable farming and fishing, and humane animal husbandry.

5. Sound food choices emphasize locally grown, seasonally fresh and whole or minimally processed ingredients.

6. Cultural and biological diversity is essential for the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Preserving and revitalizing sustainable food and agricultural traditions strengthen that diversity.

7. The healthy, traditional diets of many cultures offer abundant evidence that fruits, vegetables, beans, breads and grains are the foundation of good diets.

8. As part of their education, our children deserve to be taught basic cooking skills and to learn the impact of their food choices on themselves, on their culture, and on their environment.


I don't care if I learned that Bayless occasionally ate at a Burger King (I myself do if I'm in a rush), but taking their money to endorse a product of theirs, knowing his commitment to sustainable, local food, it's just obscene to me. I am not politically correct about a whole lot of stuff, but this reeks. For the record, I think McDonald's is a far worse organization than BK. It's not about whether the sandwich tastes good (I'm sure the additives are well-concealed). It's about the Fast Food Nation connection and background.

Why pick on Bayless just because he got a really big check for doing the same thing they all are?


Because you can't take a public stand to support the things Chefs Collaborative does and take big money from a corporation with a history of selling rainforest beef (though they did stop—a year and a half after a boycott began in 1987), using chemicals to make their milkshakes taste natural, and so on. Well, you can, but it's selling out. The Washington Post uses this phrase: "Burger King hastily arranged the endorsement of celebrity chef Rick Bayless."

In the Miami Herald, Bayless says, "But I think this is a step in the right direction. It's healthier, fresher-tasting and much less processed.''

"Much less processed" means __________? Processed. I doubt the lettuce and tomatoes are organic, either. (I'm not an organic zealot, but I will only eat organic greens because you can't peel lettuce.)

But pimping is pimping.


I actually think it's whoring, but I see your point, Jinmyo. And there may be a side of the story I don't know, but if it's a case of "baby gotta have new shoes," then it is selling out.

Will this keep me from patronizing his establishments?


It will me. I know lots of people who love eating at Frontera, and I'd looked forward to it myself, but unless I hear differently, I'm not giving him my business. Looks like he doesn't need it, anyway.

Edited by tanabutler, 20 September 2003 - 08:39 AM.


#78 ronnie_suburban

ronnie_suburban
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 5,977 posts
  • Location:Suburbs of Chicago

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:38 AM

There is no explanation. There is no defense.
This goof doesn´t have enough money? He`s gotta pimp for the Evil Empire?
In one stroke he´s negated everything he´s ever said, everything he ever claimed to stand for.
Next he´ll be doing lap dances at corpórate functions

Someone I know said (at least once) that chefs are hustlers...this seems to be a textbook case of hustling, no? I guess because it's BK, a line has been crossed.

I can't believe I'm arguing this side of the matter...it's been at least 10 years since I set foot in a BK and even then it was only to buy a soda.

Of course, in the face of the details that Tana posted, I'm gaining some perspective what on RB may have really done here.

=R=
"Hey, hey, careful man! There's a beverage here!" --The Dude, The Big Lebowski

LTHForum.com -- The definitive Chicago-based culinary chat site

ronnie_suburban 'at' yahoo.com

#79 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:42 AM

I just e-mailed Mr. Bayless through his web site to see if he will weigh in on this debacle. We will see.

(Tony... what is with the weird apostrophe business?)
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#80 Wolfert

Wolfert
  • participating member
  • 1,214 posts
  • Location:sonoma

Posted 20 September 2003 - 08:56 AM

Didn't Jacques Pepin work for Howard Johnson?

His rep survived.
“C’est dans les vieux pots, qu’on fait la bonne soupe!”, or ‘it is in old pots that good soup is made’.

#81 Jinmyo

Jinmyo
  • participating member
  • 9,879 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON, Canada

Posted 20 September 2003 - 09:11 AM

Didn't Jacques Pepin work for Howard Johnson?

His rep survived.

Yes, but Pepin actually worked. He designed the food to be served throughout the chain of hotels.

Chef Bayless is just pimping for a sandwich he hasn't even designed.
"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

#82 ambra

ambra
  • participating member
  • 459 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 09:56 AM

When you sell your reputation, you don't also get to keep it.

This to me says it ALL.
In the end, you built your rep, I guess that means you have every right to tear it down (or not.) Although, I'm sure he's laughing ALLLL the way to the bank. (I'm sure he didn't do this for chump change. Who's better then him?)

But I dont see how it is so surprising that he did this. Visiting his website, you see how commercial he is, hes got advertisements, tons of pics of himself (cus its about the FOOD,) hes got a whole line of tortilla chips, salsa, Margarita Mix, GIFT SETS (!!) that you can PURCHASE!

Doesn't that make you think he IS looking to make more money, more money, more money?

He's not the only one anyway, theres bunches of them. We have an collection of Master Pimp chefs now.

#83 hjshorter

hjshorter
  • participating member
  • 3,471 posts
  • Location:Bethesda, MD

Posted 20 September 2003 - 10:45 AM

What if the BK support includes charitable contributions for some of these other Bayless interests like Chef's Collaborative?


This is like saying "What if Philip Morris gives some of its profits to the EPA?"

I have some sympathy here.

I worked for the Kennedy Center (a nonprofit arts organization) for years. Philip Morris was a huge sponsor of ours. If it wasn't for them, many many worthwhile performances like ballet and symphony would not be presented. Sure they're a tobacco company and they suck, but if you need the bucks it's sometimes worthwhile not looking too closely at who signs the checks. I don't know of a single arts org in this town or many others who would have turned them down.
Heather Johnson
In Good Thyme

#84 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 10:54 AM

FYI, Burger King refuses to accept e-mail for customer feedback. The only way to contact them is via telephone (office hours, M-F) and snail mail.

Burger King's "Animal Well-Being" policies.

Burger King Corporation (BKC) is the industry's leading champion in the adoption of meaningful requirements to ensure the appropriate and proper treatment of animals by its vendors and suppliers. In every country in which it operates, BKC requires these businesses to adhere to strict standards and seeks to encourage permanent improvements in the industry for the care, housing, transport and slaughter of cattle, swine and poultry.

Beginning with its 2001 petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fully and actively enforce the federal Humane Slaughter Act, and receiving guidance from industry experts on its Animal Well-being council, Burger King Corporation is continuing to achieve positive milestones in its Animal Handling programs.


Well, doesn't that have the ring of sincerity about it?

The policies, procedures and best practices surrounding humane animal handling are constantly evolving based on the latest science and research.


Is this true? Is humane handling of animals something that evolves constantly, based on science and research?

Burger King has on its website the ironically-named Nutritional Wizard, through which you can see the nutritional content of any given item. The Santa Fe sandwich isn't on there yet, but when it is, you will be able to view the sodium content. (A "healthful" Chicken Caesar salad, with croutons, parmesan cheese, and Creamy Caesar dressing, contains 1850 mg of salt (that is nearly an entire teaspoon). The RDA is 2400mg, and that is the maximum amount considered healthful by the FDA (who always, always have your best interests at heart).

Got Windows Media? See commercials (without Bayless).

Go visit the McDonald's site if you want more amusement of this kind. McDonald's Corporate Spin on their "Social Responsibility."

As you'll see, McDonald's commitment to social responsibility is an important part of our heritage...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

McDonald's has a long-standing commitment to environmental protection.

:wacko:

Fast Food Nation, anyone?

Philip Morris was a huge sponsor of ours.


Hjshorter, it's not that it's corporate money per se—not in this instance. It's that Burger King is a polar opposite of the values of Chefs Collaborative, with which Rick Bayless has allied himself to the point of being on the board of overseers. "Local, sustainable, nourishing, organic, diverse." Do those words go in the same sentence with "Burger King"? Not unless it contains an additional word: "NOT!"

#85 it aint easy being cheesy

it aint easy being cheesy
  • legacy participant
  • 58 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 11:09 AM

How can any one look at the situation other than what it is. Rick Bayless took the money. We can begrudge him or congratulate him. But to say any thing other than it being a sellout is ludacris. I personally have not lost any great respect for him. Do I believe its a good sandwich, NO. Do I think his restaurants are worse now, NO. But I do think there is some honesty issues when you don't call it like it is. He utterly and comepletely sold out. Would I do the same? Yes! Would you have the right to lose respect? Yes! But that was the choice he made. I would respect all his reasons for doing it and not be bitter about "HIS" choice. But once he did it the ramifications are not only obvious but expected. I defend his choice as one for his future and his family but it was a SELL OUT. To say otherwise is just ignorant. Emiril makes no bones about what he does. Thats why I respect him. Keller sells frozen overpriced meals. To me thats more of a disgrace and outrage. I know where Emiril stands. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

#86 Bux

Bux
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 12,211 posts
  • Location:New York City

Posted 20 September 2003 - 11:15 AM

I'm still waiting to see what exactly it is that Bayless will be saying beyond the fact that this is a step in the right direction for BK. I don't have trouble with that, so far. In the meantime, while I have no trouble following the reasoning on both sides of this discussion, I have a problem with sanctimony whenever I see it and I see it here in spades.

If Bayless is to be seen as a leader in a movement, shouldn't he be the first to recognize and encourage any step, however small, in that direction even if from a major whore in the field? Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Bayless is not Thomas Keller, Daniel Boulud or Charlie Trotter. Fast food is not going to go away and what's served at BK and McDo is going to affect what much of the population gets to eat.

As I said, I'm still waiting to see what exactly it is that Bayless will be saying. At this point, I'd eat at his restaurants if the food remains the same, but I wouldn't let him sleep with my sister because his character is suspect. (Can I say that on the Internet?)
Robert Buxbaum
WorldTable
Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.
My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

#87 MatthewB

MatthewB
  • legacy participant
  • 2,383 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 11:58 AM

All money is tinged with blood. Get over it.

#88 it aint easy being cheesy

it aint easy being cheesy
  • legacy participant
  • 58 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 12:02 PM

The part of this debate that is interesting is that Rick Bayless more than preaching about organic etc. has always been a preacher for authenticity. From taking his staff to Mexico every year to finding ingrediants so a dish can be truly "authentic." This is where his role in this is a little confusing. He has always taken advantage of the commercialism of his role. He's done it very well and maintained respect. By doing the Chefs Collaboritive, trips to Mexico, Speaking about authenticity, etc. But this is different. Once again I don't begrudge him. Its not only his choice but he's earned the oppportunity. I don't hold him or anyone else up to any higher standard. But it is what it is. For it to hold any sway is a personal decision based on what your hero's, your role models, or your celebrities going to do. But he still did sell out.

#89 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 20 September 2003 - 12:38 PM

I don't feel in the least sanctimonious in saying that Bayless is a hypocrite and a sell-out for endorsing a Burger King sandwich that he didn't even develop, given his affiliation with Chefs Collaborative and the values he espouses with that affiliation. And yes, I do have higher standards for people who, in their professional and personal lives, themselves espouse the higher values they hope to inspire others to embrace.

#90 hjshorter

hjshorter
  • participating member
  • 3,471 posts
  • Location:Bethesda, MD

Posted 20 September 2003 - 12:47 PM

The part of this debate that is interesting is that Rick Bayless more than preaching about organic etc. has always been  a preacher for authenticity.

Except, and this is one of the things I love about his cookbooks, he always makes allowances for those of us who live in the real world, who perhaps can't always get the most "authentic" ingredients. He always suggests alternatives, or whether the dish can't be made successfully with alternatives.

Edited by hjshorter, 20 September 2003 - 12:48 PM.

Heather Johnson
In Good Thyme