Pizza at the zoo? I don’t think so

Pizza, as far as I’m concerned, is one of those odd foods. It’s not always worth getting.

I'll take the corner slice

If we’re talking about a pie that was freshly made and is eaten while still piping hot, then sure. I don’t even mind a cold slice that happens to be left over from that pie.

BUT WHEN I happen to encounter a snack stand at some event and see that they’re offering up pizza as one of their menu choices, I rarely bother to get it. Too much is lost in the translation of having to produce a large mass of slices available for people to munch on – rather than on focusing on trying to make an individual pizza that is worth consuming.

So excuse me for getting a giggle at the reports this week that the Lincoln Park Zoo has reached agreement with a new company to sell pizza slices to those people who are visiting the world-class zoo and whose appetite has not been killed off by the aromas of various substances generated by the animals after they have eaten.

People who want pizza at the zoo can now claim that they are eating pizza from Aurelio’s, a suburban Homewood-based chain whose fanatics will claim it to be the best pizza one could ever consume.

I know because I can recall high school being surrounded by those people (I attended a South Holland-based high school that had – still has, actually, an Aurelio’s located one block away from campus) who thought I was insane for the fact that I didn’t care for the product.

EVEN BY PIZZA standards, there was just too much grease – to the point where it overwhelmed the pizza toppings, rather than enhanced them.

Now, zoo-goers are going to get to share that same experience, in between staring at the animals occupying space that I’m sure makes real estate developers drool while fantasizing about what kind of monstrosity they would build on the land – if ever given the chance!

I noticed in statements that Aurelio’s officials are saying their bringing their “special pizza-making processes” to the zoo. I don’t know what those special things are. But it could be what makes the difference between a slice of pizza that bears a resemblance to the restaurant, and something covered in gobs of cheese that tastes no different than what you’d buy in the frozen foods aisle of whatever supermarket you prefer to peruse.

Calling it “Aurelio’s” pizza could be the equivalent of deceptive advertising – albeit one that Aurelio’s approves of because it puts the name out there.

IT’S NOT GOING to be something that gets me out to the zoo anytime soon.

Having a brand-name pizza isn’t even going to be what gets me out to U.S. Cellular Field this season. I’ll go to a ballgame or two in 2014. But the fact that they now also have a deal with a local pizzeria isn’t that big a deal.

In the case of the Chicago White Sox, it is Beggar’s Pizza that is operating the concessions stands that sell pizza slices. Now I’ll admit to preferring Beggar’s to Aurelio’s (something about those extra-large chunks of toppings – particularly sausage – makes their pizza interesting).

But I’m not optimistic that the same taste will translate to the ballpark. It may be even further off-the-mark from Aurelio’s at the zoo. Although it’s going to have to be better than the DiGiorno frozen pizza brand that was sold at the ballpark in recent seasons.

ALTHOUGH THE KEY to getting a pizza worth anything may well be to stop off at a Lou Malnati’s restaurant after the ballgame/zoo trip. Although perhaps a deep-dish or pan pizza is a totally different type of food item.

That is, unless you have a neighborhood place nearby that has the absolute best pizza cut into squares that one could ever find – and which nobody else knows a thing about.

Those are usually the best, and can’t be replicated anywhere else.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: My personal fave from a pizza are those bite-sized slices you get from the corners of a round pizza cut into squares.

Can we end this “controversy” now?!?

We got the encore this week to what may well be the ‘stupid’ scandal of the summer. Anybody else remember Chick-fil-A?

MORENO: Back in the news because of pollo



All across the country, government officials have been expressing their opposition to the chicken chain, which is an Atlanta-based company whose owners like to claim they believe in morals, decency and respect – but go out of their way to express hateful attitudes toward gay people.

THEY MAY HAVE the right to think such thoughts. But what arouses the ire of many people is the way this particularly company’s management likes to use its financial muscle to push for politicians who will promote their warped ideals.

So naturally, when the company decided it was going to start trying to set up their franchises in Chicago, it was all too likely that one of our local officials would take offense.

That came in the form of 1^st Ward Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno, who decided that he didn’t want the company locating a store in the portion of the Logan Square neighborhood that lies within his ward.

He went after the Chick-fil-A people, claiming their views didn’t represent those of Chicagoans. For a short while, he even had Mayor Rahm Emanuel on his side.

BUT THEN, THE ideologues came crawling out of the woodwork, and this whole issue seriously devolved to the level of stupidity.

The same people who made a point of deliberately eating at Chick-fil-A franchises because the food is “delicious, and non-gay” (their words, not mine) took up the cause of “freedom of expression.”

They wanted someone to be permitted to express such nonsense-talk. Which may well be within their right – we do have the right to be wrong.

But what I never understood about the way this turned into a crusade to shut Moreno up was the idea that, somehow, Chick-fil-A was entitled to the “last” word.

AS THOUGH THE company could not be challenged on their beliefs. That is pure nonsense. Freedom of expression really means that we can devolve into a batch of whiners with everybody expressing their thoughts equally.

Any other belief is just downright un-American – which is what I think of the people who are going to be determined to believe that Moreno “lost” this brawl, which hopefully is now resolved on account of the fact that the company has come up with some sort of statement that will be interpreted by some as a shift in their attitudes on the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality.

The statement, supposedly sent to all franchises from the corporate headquarters, tells the managers that they’re not to disrespect anyone based on sexual orientation. It also says the company’s not-for-profit foundation will stop giving financial contributions to groups that oppose gay couples being able to marry.

In exchange for that, Moreno says he’ll now stand back and do nothing to thwart a Chick-fil-A franchise from setting up in his neighborhood. Although one of the "golden" rules of the "Chicago Way" of doing things is that aldermen reign supreme over what goes on in their wards.

PERSONALLY, I THINK the statement is cheap talk. I read the rhetoric and wonder what the loophole is that will still allow for hostility toward gay people and support for those who act against them.

Will it literally be just the company’s executives making private contributions to the politicians of their choice? This may not change anything. Which would make the whole summer’s worth of flare-ups a whole lot of rants about nothing!

Personally, I was glad when this story withered away in the news cycle during the summer. Having it crop up again this week is kind of annoying. Because I don’t think of a Chick-fil-A store as a place worth much attention either way. The one time I ate there (a store in Springfield, Ill., that no longer exists), I was distinctly unimpressed with my sandwich.

The one good thing I can think of coming out of all this is that we can quit thinking of Chick-fil-A as being a place to make a political statement, and can go back to thinking of it as merely a franchise that serves mediocre food.

  -30-

When is a Dunkin’ just another donut?

Perhaps it is appropriate that a silly dispute over what constitutes a Dunkin’ Donuts became public knowledge on April Fool’s Day.

The stories published about Walid Elkhatib, who until this week ran a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise in Westchester, sound almost like they’re some sort of practical joke – as to how gullible is the public that we’d actually believe this silly situation could occur in our society?

BUT THE STORIES are real. Elkhatib no longer gets to be a part of the Dunkin’ Donuts “family,” although he still has his snack shop in the western suburbs.

At stake is the fact that Elkhatib is Muslim, and has problems with the fact that the national chain of donut shops included the breakfast sandwiches that put ham, sausage and bacon on his menu.

Elkhatib wasn’t about to consume any of those food products, and he cited his religious beliefs for refusing to include them on the menu at his Westchester franchise.

But that goes counter to the whole concept of fast-food chains, that like to advertise about how one can get the same product at the same quality level each and every time one walks into any of their franchises.

THE IDEA OF someone deviating from the menu for any reason offended the corporate types, and they tried to pressure Elkhatib to get with the program and start serving those sausage on croissant sandwiches that some people like to think of as an elegant breakfast – but which I think of as relatively tasteless.

A federal jury ruled earlier this year that Dunkin’ Donuts did not discriminate against Elkhatib based on religious grounds for trying to get him to sell the pork products. But it wasn’t until earlier this week that Elkhatib and his attorneys agreed to give up the Dunkin’ Donuts label.

The simple fact is that the lease for the donut shop that used the Dunkin’ label is in Elkhatib’s name, and the equipment used to “make the donuts” is owned by him as well.

I don’t dispute that he has every right to run a donut shop (which he has done for 30 years), and in whatever fashion he wants to. If he can find a market for the products he wants to serve, he will make money and survive. If the lack of a specific food product causes customers to go elsewhere, then he will go out of business.

THAT IS THE “American way.” It’s basic capitalism.

But it will have to be Elkhatib Donuts, or whatever name he chooses to use in maintaining his business in Westchester.

Because the company does get some right to determine how people use its logo and image and product lines in earning a living.

What amazes me is the fact that Elkhatib was allowed to get by with a differing program for as long as he did. He began operating a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise back in 1979 – five years before the company came up with anything resembling pork or breakfast sandwiches.

FROM 1984 UNTIL 2002, Dunkin’ corporate types actually let him get by with running a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise that did not offer the full menu – even going so far as to design a sign for him to display that made it clear to customers that the “meat” products that could be found at other Dunkin’ franchises were not to be found at the Westchester location.

It was then that Dunkin’ types told Elkhatib they would not renew his franchise agreement because of his refusal to sell the pork products. That agreement expired last year, but he was allowed to keep the pink-and-orange Dunkin’ logo on his shop until the trial came to an end.

This is a case that appears to be so straightforward that it amazes me it had to go to trial and could not be resolved with an out-of-court settlement.

Dunkin’ corporate types have a right to say how their logo is being used, and to deny those people who don’t want to go along with the program the ability to use it. After all, such logos imply a brand – and a company has a right to take actions to protect their image.

BUT ELKHATIB HAS the right to run a “donut shop/snack shop/restaurant/whatever type of shop” of his choice.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that his new “independent” donut shop survives financially, and outdoes any other competing shops in terms of business. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that an Elkhatib shop would do better than a Dunkin’ Donuts shop – if they were able to find a new franchise owner to compete for business in the same neighborhood.

I believe Elkhatib knows his particular neighborhood. I doubt he would have been able to run a pork-less shop for so many years (nearly two decades) if the locals who shopped there did not approve. So I will keep his shop in mind if, by chance, I happen to be in Westchester in the near future (to be honest, I rarely set foot in that part of Cook County).

And if I really feel like I have to have one of those icky-sweet Dunkin’ Donuts-type doughnuts (which I prefer to any of those things made by Krispy Kreme), there are hundreds of other locations I can turn to.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: For a case where the outcome seems so obvious, it took a few years (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-dunkindonuts-pork,0,3060927.story) to reach the solution achieved this week.

At a time when Barack Obama is in England trying to give a dignified presentation of the U.S., the Brits (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/dunkin-donuts-muslim-franchise-pork) also are getting this portrayal of our society at its boorish moment.