How many teachers tell their students “The Constitution exists to protect the people from government”? How many students absorb the lesson – how many ever even hear it – that the American system is really based on limiting the leviathan, on binding it, shackling it, stunting its growth, for the public good?
We do this figuratively, in our state and federal constitutions. We do it literally, in the way that we surround Washington DC with a Beltway, not unlike a moat or no-man’s-land, to keep people out and to keep its own denizens in. But do our children’s schoolteachers share this information with them? Do the teachers understand it themselves?
They sing the praise of “democracy,” cheering our right to select our representatives, our right to run for office ourselves, our right to talk to our assemblymen and have rallies and demonstrations, our right to lobby for more funding or for some new law.
But we don’t teach our children that the government was meant to be slow moving – that the system of checks and balances was intended to slow down legislation, not speed things up. We don’t grow up knowing that the government that governs best, governs least. We don’t read our children the Declaration of Independence, clause by clause, to ensure they understand what tyranny is.
Chicago beef is not meant to be a Philly sandwich from the Midwest.
And we are not meant to live under a class of people that think they are better than us, much like the Indian caste system, just because they "think right".
Click and read the whole article. You'll learn something.
Hot giardiniera on my Italian beef, with a side of roasted Hungarian hot wax peppers smothered in melted cheese.
Can’t get an italian been sandwich anywhere near Our Nation’s Armpit, aka “DC”.
I have a better idea, Di Leo. Stop spamming FR with stuff you cut and pasted onto your blog (this is second hand from another source per your own admission) and then posted as clickbait here. Just stop it. Here is the rest.
***********
It looks simple, but it took generations to perfect not only the beef, but also the peppers. Most Italian beef joints give customers a choice of giardiniera (a hot Italian pickled vegetable mixture) or simmered sweet peppers, or sometimes pepperoncini.
As I read the article, I could see that the writer was trying her best to be fair; she judged each place’s sandwich by the size of the roll, the quantity of beef it contained, how well drenched in the “au jus” it was, how badly all that gravy compromised the structural integrity of the bread, and of course, the overall flavor. To all this, she gave some added consideration to the aroma from the bag, the surroundings at each restaurant, and the price.
I cannot stress enough that she clearly tried to be fair.
However…
The article begins with her conveying disappointment at the fact that these places don’t serve it with cheese. And then she also proudly declared that she sampled each one without any peppers, to be able to be completely fair in judging the beef.
This is like ordering a serving of Rigatoni Bolognese, but telling them to hold the Bolognese sauce, because you want to be completely objective in evaluating the noodles.
Peppers are a part of an Italian beef sandwich. Cheese is not. While some beef joints will happily add provolone or mozzarella if you request it, and they’ll certainly serve it without any peppers to make a sale, it’s just not a “Chicago Italian beef sandwich” that way.
You can’t judge an Italian beef sandwich without ordering an Italian beef sandwich the way it’s meant to be made. Before you can evaluate any product fairly – before you can hope to understand whether something is working right or not – you have to first take the time to understand what that thing is.
At the end of the article, as with most such articles, the writer casts her vote for the best of the three she sampled. Since I’m personally a devotee of one of the chains that she didn’t evaluate, I have no dog in this fight. But I will say this; the vote cannot be accepted as legitimate, because the voter didn’t really understand what she was supposed to be voting on.
No matter how diligent you are, no matter how much you may try to be fair and balanced in your evaluation, you have to first fully understand the product you’re evaluating.
And that brings us, unfortunately but unmistakably, to the problem with elections in America.
Every other November – in some states, every single November – millions and millions of people look forward to local, state, and federal elections, and try their best to make rational evaluations. They watch TV and internet commercials; read the mailers, listen to the radio. They compare resumes and campaign promises, measure their personalities. “Do I like this one or that one? Which one looks trustworthy? Which one seems smarter? Which one seems nicer?”
Some voters, of course, are completely mercenary: “which one promised the most to me?” – and some are completely altruistic: “which one promised the most to other people?” Some voters are foolish: “which one is cute?” – and some are corrupt: “which one will enable my corrupt lifestyle?”
And as we know from the growth of vote fraud over the years, some voters are outright fabrications.
But the issue that jumped out at me, as I read that well-intentioned review of Chicago’s Italian beef staple, was the nature of the well-intentioned voters, the ones who go into the ballot box meaning to do a good job, truly applying themselves to make a wise choice, but failing miserably because they don’t really understand what they’re voting on.
Our grammar school civics classes do (or used to) a decent job teaching children about how the government is put together. They explain the three branches, the bicameral legislature, the president’s cabinet. Teachers ensure that our 8th graders know that your congressman gets two years; your senator gets six, your president gets four. Children learn at least these mechanics rather diligently.
But these matters have never really been the key to the American system.
Sure, the Framers chose two years for this office, four for that one… but that wasn’t the important stuff; what mattered to them was the limitations on what these candidates could do in office.
How many teachers tell their students “The Constitution exists to protect the people from government”? How many students absorb the lesson – how many ever even hear it – that the American system is really based on limiting the leviathan, on binding it, shackling it, stunting its growth, for the public good?
We do this figuratively, in our state and federal constitutions. We do it literally, in the way that we surround Washington DC with a Beltway, not unlike a moat or no-man’s-land, to keep people out and to keep its own denizens in. But do our children’s schoolteachers share this information with them? Do the teachers understand it themselves?
They sing the praise of “democracy,” cheering our right to select our representatives, our right to run for office ourselves, our right to talk to our assemblymen and have rallies and demonstrations, our right to lobby for more funding or for some new law.
But we don’t teach our children that the government was meant to be slow moving – that the system of checks and balances was intended to slow down legislation, not speed things up. We don’t grow up knowing that the government that governs best, governs least. We don’t read our children the Declaration of Independence, clause by clause, to ensure they understand what tyranny is.
And so, we have an electorate that includes a very well-intentioned, very dedicated army of voters – 30% of them? 40%? 60%? Who knows? – who are doing their level best to pick the right candidates for office, without having a clue of what each office is really supposed to do.
Voters try to pick the candidate who will spend government money on the best things, the candidate who will try to fix the most problems, the candidate who will punish the most people and groups that the voter doesn’t like.
The voters just don’t realize that the only way our system will work is if it behaves the way it was intended: we are supposed to pick candidates who don’t want to spend government money, period… candidates who try their best to let problems fix themselves rather than making them worse through government meddling… candidates who will leave people and groups alone, and who will work to resist their fellow politicians’ efforts to tax, regulate, and impoverish them.
Until the electorate understands what our government is supposed to do, it’s really not entirely fair to blame them for picking the wrong candidates, again and again.
“What have you given us?” the legendary Philadelphia matron asked delegate Benjamin Franklin in 1789. Came the reply: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Somewhere along the way, our nation’s elders forgot to leave the instructions out for future voters to read.
South sider here.
Take about a 5 lb. rump roast. Stab it about 30 times. In each stab stuff part of a garlic clove. Coat it with fennel seed and oregano. Put it in a roasting pan with about an inch of water. Bake at 350° until thermometer registers 110° Cool and slice very thin.
Add 4 cups of water and 4 bouillon cubes to pan drippings. Add 1 tsp of oregano, 1 Tbl Worcestershire, 1 crushed garlic clove, salt and pepper. Simmer for about 15 minutes.
Marinate beef in broth mixture overnight.
Heaven.
Portillo's is now a chain and its locations (including Florida) can be looked up on your search engine.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has ever been able to duplicate the Portillo recipe for Italian Beef.
It's yummy in the tummy.
Leni
Somewhere along the way, our nation’s elders forgot to leave the instructions out for future voters to read.
No...they didn’t forget. Instead, we refuse to teach those instructions and denigrate them if they are mentioned.
When the boomers go, there will be no one who has the faintest inkling of a civics education.
WE did that.
A French Dip Illinois style is 100 times better. medium rare thin slices beef on a crusty french bread deep dipped in au jus. Not the slimy Italian mix - yuck.
Unfortunately, Alexis Kishimoto is a nutroot, but in this instance I agree with her: Portillo's.
"Italian beef is a classic Chicago dish that's increased in popularity after the debut of Hulu's "The Bear" earlier this year. The show follows a chef returning to Chicago to run his family's sandwich shop that sells — you guessed it — Italian beef.Originating in Chicago in the 1900s, the iconic sandwiches consist of slow-cooked, thin-cut roast beef and au jus on a French roll.
I wanted to order it at some of the most popular chains, so I asked a Chicagoan for recommendations and settled on three: Buona, Portillo's, and Al's Beef.
Buona's beef was a bit underwhelming, and Al's beef was a bit overpowering.
Portillo's sandwich took the longest to order, but it was by far the best and worth the wait."