Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Open Thread #87

Miscellaneous topics go here, folks. And we're off...

40 comments:

GrandForksGuy said...

I ate lunch at the Blue Moose the other day and, while I enjoyed visiting the restaurant since I hadn't been there for a few months, I was a little surprised by some of the changes. First, the place has had a minor remodeling project...nothing too major and it looks good. The thing that surprised me a little was the menu. When we sat down, I saw that a new menu had been made introduced recently and I figured that probably meant prices had increased. I was correct...everything on the menu seems to cost about $1 to $2 dollars more that it did on my last visit. Also, the menu doesn't seem to have as many options as before. I'm sad to say that I also wasn't as impressed with what I ordered as I usually had been in the past. I paid around $15 dollars for a rather ho-hum sandwich and fries, a soft drink, and a tip. That's getting to be a little steep in my opinion. Hasn't anyone else noticed any of these changes at the Blue Moose lately?

MattFacingSouth said...

Oh, I can't pass this up...

If you're looking to check out the Moose's digs, Still Fighting It is playing there tomorrow (Wed) night at 10:00.

Shameless, I know, but apropos.

Anonymous said...

Well a friend and I went to the Blue Moose a couple days ago. Lunch was $50 for 2 and tip. Waitress was friendly, she gave us both a hug ! Blonde, pony tail, and tattoos. Miss the riverboat steaming by. Food was great, I had blackened Mahi Mahi, brings back my year I spent in Hawaii. Friend had Cowboy Burger or was it Outlaw Burger ? Has the best view of the Red River. greenglass4

Anonymous said...

Great article in Sundays GF Herald by Brad Schlossman about former UND Hockey player ! "Hockey player, contractor...tour guide ? All American defenseman from 1971 to 1974 from Warroad, Minn.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't any Subway in town use any regular mustard instead of that spicy stuff? I hate that stuff.

ec99 said...

Any stores in GF sell hibatchis? I've looked at Target, Walmart, Home of E, Menards. Lowes, KMart, Pamida, even St. Vincent de Paul.

Anonymous said...

mmmm...blonde pony tail...mmmm

Anonymous said...

you can ask for yellow mustard packets

Barbara said...

Blue Moose seems to change their menu quite often. They had an excellent Chicken Satay salad on it for a while (last summer?), which is no more. Food prices are going up everywhere, you can hardly blame just the Blue Moose for that. There are other places in town that charge more for food that, well frankly, isn't as good.

maura said...

Blue Moose used to have an amazing Greek salad that they also removed from the menu. Sad.

TLH said...

I swear I saw one in St Vincent de Paul yesterday---when were you there?

ec99 said...

Two days ago.

Barbara said...

You could try requesting one on freecycle, maybe someone is trying to get rid of one after getting a large grill.

And, not quite a hibachi, but Sears has these

Anonymous said...

http://www.amazon.com/BBQ-Guys-30052-Hibachi/dp/B0000SW0UU

Product Features

* Cast Iron
* Portable Charcoal Grill
* Cooking grids measure 9 x 15 inches. Total measurement 10 x 18 inches.
* Great for quick cookouts and tailgating!
* Perfect for camping

Anonymous said...

I was little upset at the Blue Moose just last week. I decided to meet the wife for half price appetizers and tap beers after work. The waitress even told me apps. were half price. As it turns out, Blue Moose discontinued half price apps. between 3pm and 6pm. The waitress was pleasant about it, but I guess I'll be spending more of my summer on the patio of Applebees instead.

Anonymous said...

The blue moose is great. I just wish there prices were slightly cheaper... honestly 7 bucks for a tall beer... sure its that amazing vanilla porter, but 7 bucks is crazy... I'll go buy a six pack for 2 dollars more!

Bring the beer prices down then you can get me drunk enough to pay the prices for the food.

bjmoney said...

Unsurprisingly, Mrs. Hag gave Giuseppes a good review.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=81437§ion=Columnists&columnist=Marilyn%20Hagerty

bjmoney said...

we could smell the garlic and the tomato sauce when we stepped out of the car.
thank god its not in the mall... you know why...




A dozen tables are covered with crisp white clothes under glass.
Not so much white clothes, as offwhite cloths.




There are white wood chairs.
More like plastic on steel, but against Mrs.Hags smooth bottom, its all the same.




It is a setting somewhere between average and elegant.
As opposed to somewhere between ordinary and luxurious.



The Sicilian antipasto was a mixture of tomatoes, fresh mozzarella cheese, sun-dried peppers in an oil dressing.
That would be almost as good with fire-roasted tomatoes.



The antipasto ($9.95) came in a long tray with cubes of cucumber, tomatoes and rolled-up deli meats in a vinaigrette-style dressing.
same dressing.



I ordered spinach ravioli, which was one of the specials for the evening. It arrived smothered in a tomato and cheese sauce with a nice sharp taste.
Tomato cream sauce.



We tried the cannoli dessert ($3.50) because our waitress told us it was her favorite.
Most likely the Tiramisu was her favorite, like an angel finishing off in your mouth.



And the rich, creamy filling indeed is made on-site.
Who doesn't love rich, creamy filling?



My advice is to go there on empty.
With ample portions, you WILL be able to wait out the current oil crises at Giuseppe's as you wait for gas prices to go down.



Her songs are easy listening, and don’t intrude.
Thankfully, Mrs. Hag didn't show up when Cats was being performed.



I think Marilyn could do with an intervention to help her with her addiction. After her 3rd bottle of merlot, she began shouting in German at anyone and everyone who would look in her directon, eyeing her dentures which she placed on the table. I walked out after she downed a gallon of dipping oil and slammed her plate on the table, causing glass to fly all around the other patrons in the ristorante.

Anonymous said...

OMFG I got big news. The Herald said GF population has increased by 70 people!!!! 70 People, wow!

Anonymous said...

Good call 7:18, must be the pregnancies, haha.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Money,

How dare you challenge-and worse, ridicule-Mrs. Hag's insightful analysis. She puts her heart and soul into her craft and has no need for big-city critical thinking that might harsh her cannoli buzz. She speaks for all of us who live the Hot Pockets and Schlitz lifestyle.

Barbara said...

I actually ate at Guiseppes last weekend for my anniversary and was so disappointed. I love italian and really wanted to loved it. But we had a terrible dining experience.
First you are not given a bread plate, so I figured when I finished my salad I'd use it. Nope, the waitress came, picked my utensils up off the plate and went to just put them down on the table(?), I took them from her instead so I could at least do something to keep the fork which will be going back in my mouth from being placed on the table. Anyway, that's more of a petty issue.

The italian salad dressing was underwhelming. For dinner I ordered veal marsala, and when it arrived it was like rubber and I literally could not cut it. I've never sent anything back ever, until last weekend. My husband ordered mussels over pasta (hot), and said it was ok... not good, but not bad. I don't think the spaghetti had been properly drained, because it was like soup in the bottom of the bowls. The food just wasn't very good, except the bread, the bread was good.

I really, really wanted to love this place, but I won't be going back. Even if it was ok, I'd go back, but the food wasn't worth it. I hope others have better experiences.

Barbara said...

Oh and the chairs reminded us of food court chairs... not that that mattered to the taste of the food. Also, because they have no soft surfaces at all, it was very loud and very difficult to hear your dinner companion unless you really raise your voice, which over all didn't make for a pleasant evening.

Barbara said...

One more, last one I promise...

Does Marilyn Haggerty ever give an unfavorable review? If not, what is the point of having her as a food critic?

Anonymous said...

what is the point of having her as a food critic?

Food Critic??

I thought she was in advertising!

ec99 said...

"Does Marilyn Haggerty ever give an unfavorable review? If not, what is the point of having her as a food critic?"

No, she doesn't. She really doesn't write restaurant reviews; they are more like autobiographical anecdotes: "what I did today". Sort of in the style of what a 3rd grader would produce. That the Herald publishes them is a reflection of what they perceive the intellectual level of their readership to be.

Barbara said...

She's always writing about restaurants, I just made the assumption that the intent was that of food critic. Otherwise, well what's the point of her column?

ec99 said...

There is no point to her column. Her husband Jack hired Mike Jacobs, the present publisher. He keeps her on because he feels he owes Jack. I don't think anyone takes her seriously.

Anonymous said...

I also have had an unfavorable Giuseppes experience. Waited for 15 minutes just to get seated (there wasn't a wait...the waitresses just kind of stared at us. Gave us the feeling we weren't worthy of being in there. They kept going back to the kitchen and since they weren't busy, I was thinking one of them may have told someone there were people waiting to be seated. Nope. One of the starers eventually came over and asked if we wanted to be seated...um...) Pasta was very very overcooked and not well seasoned. Meat was very tough. Salad was bland. Just all around not a good experience, I guess. The table next to us sent both of their entrees back and one of their desserts. Just not a good experience all around. It could have been a bad night, though, as I have heard some good reviews of the place. I am undecided as to if I will be going back.

Jimmie said...

I also thought Giuseppe's was just so-so. I was looking forward to some authentic Italian fare, but it was actually quite bland. It wasn't bad, just wasn't very flavorful, and for the price, not worth it.

Anonymous said...

Did everyone have fun at the fair this weekend?

Anonymous said...

@11:01

I saw two gentleman making out and didn't find it appropriate. Tolerance is one thing, but when two men are sticking their tongues down each others throats, we shouldn't have to put up with that. Think of the children for gods sake, right by the petting zoo no less.

Anonymous said...

"I saw two gentleman making out and didn't find it appropriate. Tolerance is one thing, but when two men are sticking their tongues down each others throats, we shouldn't have to put up with that. Think of the children for gods sake, right by the petting zoo no less."

This, unfortunately, is the America our children are going to inherit.

Public displays of this sort have become the norm all over this country. If you say anything about it, you are immediately branded as Homo-phobic (i.e. "fearful" of their lifestyle choice) and, for some reason, ignorant. As if having morals makes you "uneducated" and "unenlightened".

The progressive movement's 40 year public relations war is nearly over, and the silent majority of this nation is losing.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in my lifetime, I'll see Catholic schools shut down over charges of so-called religism. There will be calls for a state sponsored national "Humanist" holiday, to fall on Christmas, and Earth Day will be moved from April 20th to the first Sunday after the full moon, Easter's former home. Businesses will be either boycotted (as has already begun) or bound by law into erasing all Christian and Jewish references from their stores during the holiday season, and will be fully replaced by "Humanhood" mantras.

The longer we shut up and take it, the less likely it will be to correct it, and it's going to take a hell of a lot of people standing up as one to stop this rolling stone.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the fair, my children and I went on Saturday to see the animals and exhibits. Since we will be camping in Minot for my 20th high school reunion and will be taking them to the state fair, we didn't spend money at our local fair. Even though it was windy, we still enjoyed walking through the barn and seeing the animals, taking a trip through the commercial buildings to see the exhibits, and also stopping by to "visit" with the animals in the petting zoo (the baby llama was adorable).

****

Regarding the "homophobia" related topic posted by Anonymous at 10:10 pm on July 14, 2008:

You are right on. Even churches that teach against the abnormal lifestyle that the Bible (God's Word) is so specific about -- that it is unnatural (not meant to be) are being told that they are "exclusionary" because they are simply being obedient to God's Word regarding how we are to live.

Homosexuals have made it a habit of bashing God's Word by making it appear as though Christians hate them. If they would read the Bible, they would know that we do NOT "hate" them as they accuse, but rather that we simply dislike and disagree with their unnatural lifestyle. The Bible tells us that we are to hate the sin but love the sinner. Because we are standing up for morality and Godliness, we are NOT hating those who are living a lifestyle that clearly goes against God's Word, but rather hate their unnatural and unGodly actions -- which, by the way, are perverse.

Society has gone astray from what is right and moral. Those who are supportive of immoral acts cry out for freedom of speech, yet they have shut us up and taken we moral-abiding citizens' freedom of speech away by crying "discrimination" and made it nearly impossible for us to speak up for what is right.

Lawsuits will occur, people will be put in jail, and churches will be shut down simply because they are being obedient to God's Word and teaching against sin. It is happening in other countries and will one day happen right here in the freest nation in the world.

OK, I spoke too soon. It's not so much the freest nation in the world when we can't speak up for what is right.

MattFacingSouth said...

I don't know about anyone else here, but seeing two people of any sex playing tongue hockey in public is annoying. Straight, gay, it doesn't matter - keep it in private where it belongs.

Matthew said...

Anons who don't like homosexuals:

Congratulations on contributing to the stereotype of North Dakota as a place full of backwards, ignorant rednecks. I'm not branding you as this because of your apparent homophobia, but because you fail to respect anyone's freedom when it doesn't agree with what you want.

If you want to talk morals, fine. Go on your moral crusade. The fact is, this nation was never one that tied itself to the beliefs of Christianity or any other religion. It's a nation based on the freedom of the individual to make their own choices. Your choice may be to stick your nose into the business of other people and comment on the morality or immorality of their actions; it's the choice of some people to feel attracted to/love/have sex with people of the same sex.

You can bitch and whine about those homsexuals who are destroying the world in which we live until the cows come home, but you have no right to ask the government to take away the rights of a group of people who don't fit your moral code. You're even free to teach your children that they are unnatural, or the spawn of satan, or are all child molestors, if you so desire; you can preach to like-minded people about how much men kissing men bothers you and how you wish they wouldn't. You can even take a page from the anti-abortion crowd and buy billboards on the interstate for all I care.

Your freedom of speech is not limited. Your actions are.

This is not a rant against your religion, and I could care less about whether you were Christian, Jewish, Islamic (gasp!), or follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot impose your will upon the country based on your religious book and a claim that your morality is better than someone else's.

All that being said, I have to agree with MattFacingSouth.

Kelly Clow said...

"The fact is, this nation was never one that tied itself to the beliefs of Christianity or any other religion."

Read your history, Matthew, and I don't mean the popular revisionist theories that have been passed around by Atheist professors.

The right of Freedom of Religion was created as a way to prevent the establishment of a Church of America with the President as it's spiritual head. It was not created to provide for a total "faith-neutral" zone.

EVERY one of the founding fathers was a Christian, and based every thing they did on their adherence to their faith. The proof of that is in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

All men are CREATED equal, not merely born, but CREATED and endowed by that CREATOR with inalienable rights.

"you have no right to ask the government to take away the rights of a group of people who don't fit your moral code."

What rights are we speaking about here? The right to make out in public? That right doesn't exist, Matthew. Nor does the right to Marry.

If the Right to Marry existed, anyone who wanted to marry would have the RIGHT to do so, as protected in the Constitution, regardless of the reason. Sons could marry their mothers, uncles to nieces, humans to animals and so on. As a matter of fact, if the inalienable RIGHT to marry existed, anyone who has had their marriage proposal rejected could, by law, sue on the grounds of having their civil rights violated to force the other party into marriage.

Matthew said...

Atheists? You say that with such disdain. Is it because they choose not to practice religion, or is it because they choose not to practice your chosen religion? Perhaps I should have said that this country has never endorsed one religion over another in an official capacity.

I didn't intend for this to become a discussion about gay marriage. My critique of the previous posters was that they seem to think their morality is somehow superior because they have God on their side.

Sucking face in public? You said it yourself: "pursuit of Happiness." Is it infringing on someone else's rights to suck face with someone of the same sex? No. Is it morally offensive? To some. Should it be in the government's power to cite God as a reason for passing laws against something? No.

Your CREATED argument is semantic, and subject to any number of interpretations depending on your world view. If you want to argue that way, it states clearly that "We" (supposedly, the writers of the document) "hold these truths to be self-evident." They weren't forcing anyone else to hold them, and they were recognizing the rights of EVERYONE, not just those people who agreed with them.

You are correct that freedom of religion doesn't mean a religion-free state; I have no problem with people practicing their religion as long as it does no harm to anyone else. Going door to door with God's message? Annoying, but fine. The Crusades? Not so much. I'm not arguing for freedom FROM religion, I'm just saying that being religious does not necessarily give you the moral high ground, and whatever your religion is, when practicing it in this country, you have to respect the rights of others.

Kelly Clow said...

Ok, let's take this point by point.

- Sucking face in public? You said it yourself: "pursuit of Happiness."

What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. What you do in public is EVERYONE'S business. By your argument, passing gas or masturbating in public falls within the pursuit of happiness. Like it or not, there are standards for behavior in society. I would be bothered by straight people making out in public as well. Also, the pursuit of happiness could apply to the people around you, they just want to go to an event designed to bring children to. They have the right to not have to shield junior from what they see as unnatural and wrong in a family setting.

- Your CREATED argument is semantic, and subject to any number of interpretations depending on your world view.

Do you really believe that the founding fathers could have been referring to ANYONE other than God? I think not. To interpret this in any other way is ignorant of history.

- If you want to argue that way, it states clearly that "We" (supposedly, the writers of the document) "hold these truths to be self-evident."

"We" clearly means the people, not "we, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams in particular". That is a straw man argument.

- whatever your religion is, when practicing it in this country, you have to respect the rights of others.

Again, I ask you, exactly WHAT rights are we talking about here?

Matthew said...

"Also, the pursuit of happiness could apply to the people around you, they just want to go to an event designed to bring children to. They have the right to not have to shield junior from what they see as unnatural and wrong in a family setting."

My point exactly: why do their opinions of what is "unnatural and wrong" trump mine? I'm not saying mine should trump theirs either. Problems like this are the result of social and moral differences between individuals, not disagreements between an individual and the government.

"Do you really believe that the founding fathers could have been referring to ANYONE other than God? I think not. To interpret this in any other way is ignorant of history."

I know they were referring to a God (and maybe even a Christian one). My interpretation is just that--my own. The sentiment is exactly the same whether you are an atheist or the pope. If the founding fathers had decided it was really important that this be a Christian nation, they would have stated it.

""We" clearly means the people, not "we, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams in particular". That is a straw man argument."

You missed the point I was making. Whether it was the original 13 colonies or you and me who are the "We" in question, the fact is that EVERYONE has these rights, regardless of what they think or do about ANYTHING. You and I have these rights, homosexuals have these rights, Satanists have these rights, and so do murderers and rapists.

"Again, I ask you, exactly WHAT rights are we talking about here?"

We're talking about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no "right to be happy," but there is a right to pursue it. You can go up to those two guys making out and ask them to take it elsewhere, or you can go elsewhere yourself. If you bother them enough, they have the right to leave because you're annoying. You do NOT have the right to force them to stop making out, or to enact laws against it.

You have the right to pursue happiness by relaxing and living and let live, or you can hang your happiness on trying to get others to live their lives the way YOU want them to live. I imagine the latter is more the path to frustration and hatred than happiness.

This isn't a jab at you, Kelly, but it seems like a lot of Christ's most ardent followers tend not to live their lives as Christ did.