ronnie_suburban

*big wave* to everyone! =R=

Actually, this is more or less the point I was trying to make above. It may not be "important" that this was a hypocritical act (see definition #2 above). But it was. Is it important to you? Apparently not. To Bayless? Time will tell. To me? Yes, to the idealistic idiot who still lives within me. To CC? Damn straight, IMO. Cheers, Squeat Edited for trying to spell on only one cup of coffee. I think hypocrisy is an important matter but I can't throw a blanket out there to cover all instances of it--and I do agree that RB's doing this ad is one. But, in my mind, it's important to assess each instance separately. If I were more diehard about the specific issue at hand, I'd probably be more aghast over it. And there ain't nothing wrong with being idealistic either. It just so happens that another side of me decided to show up on this thread. Cheers right back atcha' Squeat. =R=

Yes, the matter seems to be relatively "open and shut" for CC. Their dogmatic mission statement doesn't allow for much wiggle room. But I personally couldn't care less if RB comes off as (or is) a hypocrite. I cannot label someone who I don't know personally--especially given the depth of his work--over one relatively harmless (albeit very public) decision. For many, it seems that this one decision is enough to define him as a hypocrite in perpetuity. I think that's overly-simplistic, naive and unfair. Is Bayless guilty of abadonning his cause? Perhaps momentarily, but probably not for the long haul. Did he make a seemingly inconsistent decision? Sure...but I have no problem with that either. In the end, pointing to him as a hypocrite is merely a dramatic way to indicate that his efforts are less "pure" than they once were. Perhaps he is a sell-out, but he's a sell out who will still do more to further his cause than many others; including those who are eager to label him over this one choice. And viewed in that context, this instance of "selling out" is of almost no consequence. Again, this decision doesn't negate Bayless' ability to do good work, only the perception (by some) of what he is. I agree that the CC has been potentially harmed by Bayless' action but, as I asked upthread, if he had resigned from the CC before making the BK deal, would it still have been an act of hypocrisy? If he decides he want to take a less fanatical, more remunerative approach, is there some appropriate method by which he can declare his change of heart? Or is this man forever obligated to a specific path because he once chose it for himself or because of our perceptions of him? If he genuinely thinks the product is "a step in the right direction" that's enough for me...even if he received a huge payout for making the endorsement. To me, this is a tempest in a teapot...for all but the CC. In the big picture, the 'indiscretion' here is a small one. But for the CC, I think they're basically in a corner with only one way out. IMO, if they look the other way on this, they'll be the hypocrites. Professionally speaking, Bayless owed the CC a warning before this happened, but we don't know with certainty that he didn't provide them with one. As an individual, even one with publicly stated personal goals, Bayless owes no one any apologies--nor should he feel any guilt--for making this deal. =R=

Willie, I'd love to participate but we'll be out of town that weekend...I'd certainly be in if the scheduling worked out for me. =R=

Chef Jackie Shen has taken over the reigns at Red Light restaurant. I had dined twice before Shen took over, loved it. Have not been back, but friends that have said outstanding. I know that is where I'm going to use my cert. My cert's for Red Light too... =R=

=R=

Mark's And I've heard good things about another place called Espana. =R=

[/lurking] I'm enjoying your blog very much Tammy. [lurking] =R=

I believe that is because alcohol metabolizes as fat. (I learned about this when my mother got strict on her diabetic diet. ) It has to do with the aldehyde chains of the molecules or something, if I recall the biology textbook table correctly. Maybe I don't. Anyway, there are 9 calories in a gram of fat, 4 calories in a gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories in a gram of protein. Alcohol metabolizes in your system as if it had 9 calories per gram, if I may belabor my point. I seem to remember, however, that beer was counted as a carbohydrate on the food exchange list, and we joked about drinking a slice of bread with your burger. So by not drinking alcohol you are seriously taking in fewer calories. As Marlene says, a matter of making choices. My understanding from having read Atkins: A body will burn alcohol (for fuel) first...so, even if one is in BDK, alcohol will be burned ahead of fat. During periods when alcohol is in one's system, weight loss via BDK essentially stops--but only while the alcohol is present. After the alcohol is used, fat is again used as fuel by the body (assuming that one is in BDK). =R=

Testing market sensitivity, are we? =R=

Steve, I understand the point you're making. But, I'm looking at the commercial in the context of a bigger picture, and my feeling is that, even if doing the ad represents hypocrisy on Bayless' part, it likely won't have a negative effect on his overall efforts to bring change. I'm not willing to consider the ad in a singular light. My belief that Bayless will continue to do good work makes the ad a less significant event. I'm waiting to see what comes next from him before I cast judgment. As I posted earlier, I think it will be very interesting to see what CC's "official" response will be. Bayless has earned the right to sell his reputation and I choose to view him as a person who has made a change (even if it was a poor or seemingly incongruous one) rather than as a hypocrite. That said, I agree about CC...if they look the other way on this, I think it will seriously harm (if not destroy) them as an organization. If Bayless had resigned from CC before making this deal with BK, would it have made his doing this ad any less egregious? It seems pretty clear that it would have at least saved the CC from the tough decision that lay ahead for them. =R=

Because I've never made that assumption, you'll forgive me for not addressing your post. I'm simply talking about the ad, on its own terms, as well as Bayless's totally disingenuous follow-up comments. You said he was now doing his best to "chip away" at consumer awareness and perception. I don't see how his doing the ad equals that. I think he'll continue to do good work. Beyond that, I'm just ranting (and admittedly splitting hairs). Sorry to have misinterpreted your statement. =R=

I disagree with the assumption that because Bayless made this deal he will no longer work toward his previously stated goals. Even if one concedes (for sake of this discussion) that his BK ad is both a "sell out" and an act of "self-betrayal" that doesn't necessarily equal a complete abandonment of his mission. It only affects how some people perceive him, not his ability to work toward his goals (and, if he has truly abandonned his goals, then the BK deal is not inconsistent after all). Perhaps Bayless' reputation isn't as important to him as getting his message across is. This deal may have felt like a big pay day and an opportunity in Bayless' mind. But, even if he took the money for the money's sake, that does not preclude him from continuing to create change and spread his message, although it may effect the willingness of some people to listen to him. I refuse to believe that he is now, because of his association with BK, only able to do it their way; that he is now their puppet. Is there no possibility that he will have an influence, even a small one, on them? Is there no possibility that he will, by having made this deal, create further awareness of the issues he cares most about? Whatever his true intentions, the BK deal gives Bayless the opportunity to reach a greater audience with his message. Who knows what will grow from this association. Assuming that Bayless is now 180 degrees from who he was before (the BK ad) is not rational. The next time we read or hear about him raising funds or making some other worthy contribution toward sustainable farming, will it be automatically invalidated because he (once) did a BK ad? Does his appearing in the ad invalidate all of his previous work and effort? Someone said upthread that once you sell your reputation, you can never get it back. Maybe Bayless sold his, but that's all he sold. Does anyone here honestly believe that the truly worthy efforts from Bayless are now over for good? And if he continues to work for change, what difference does his reputation make? Maybe he's no longer worthy of unconditional hero worship but he's still worthy of admiration on many levels. Dismissing this man because he did a BK ad is a bit short-sighted IMO. Implying that he has now "changed sides" is probably not very accurate. =R=

Convection could be a factor, although I've made crispy-skinned birds without convection too. =R=

Sure...but at what price point? And if their margin will suffer, the idea will likely be scrapped. =R=

In his post Michel Nischan made it very clear that he was addressing this issue from a personal perspective but it'll be interesting to see if CC asks Chef Bayless to resign or if they will look the other way. Perhaps they'll simply 'spin' their own statement and move on. But, in the light of Michel Nischan's comments, not asking him to resign could be perceived as an acceptance of Bayless' actions by the CC. =R=

Check out this current thread...it's full of great info (and links to more great info) on garlic. Garlic Thread And welcome! =R=

Knock on wood. So far there's nothing I've had to give up! For my wife, it was seafood, which she normally loves. We were at dinner at The Pelican Club in NOLA...ordered a scallop appetizer and when it arrived she suddenly became very nauseous. This was at the very beginning of her pregnancy but it was the moment--as she tells me--when she was sure that her hunch about being pregnant became more than a hunch. Of course, she kept me in the dark for a short while. When we returned home, she took an ept, made a visit to the doctor and revealed to me (in a memorable state of shock ) that she was pregnant. =R=

I don't know if it's by design or random circumstance, but here in the Chicago market I've seen one ad for the sandwich many times (it's on during baseball) but it isn't the one with RB in it. I'll keep an eye out for it. =R=

The data suggest that the sandwich is healthy. It may not match up with everyone's interpretation of RB's previously stated values, it may not be "good" food and it may not be the most eco-friendly or wholesome sandwich around, but it is healthy--especially relative to other fast food--regardless of what the historically inaccurate FDA has to say about it. On that count, it's hard to view it (RB's endorsement of the product) as inconsistent with RB's statement (posted by tanabutler upthread). =R=

Not sure about the BK trucks but I know of at least a few carriers that offer separate controlled temperature zones on the same vehicle. =R=

Travel safely =R=

I'm not a scientist but my understanding (from osmosis via reading) is that there is no proven correlation between sodium intake and the onset of high blood pressure. For someone who already has high blood pressure, sodium intake is a more serious issue...and those folks shouldn't be eating at BK in the first place. Salt does not necessarily equal unhealthy. If you're going to knock the sandwich, its salt content is not the most productive place to start. =R=

Via his letter, RB sounds more like a (possibly misguided) visionary than a sell-out to me. Of course I am, on occasion, susceptible to spin. =R=

Um; no. This really is a normal week for me. Is it that abnormal? I have no idea. Bruce There went my hunch... =R=