Restaurant review of La Bodega, Regina SK

Overall it wasn't quite at where I would call it excellent, but it was a nice change from the usual appetizer, entree and desert.

The Mushroom Strudel was rich and creamy inside yet crispy on the outside, and had just the right mushroom flavour to satisfy the mushroom lover. The balsamic vinegar reduction they drizzled over the top added a slight hint of sweetness and acidity to balance the richness of the filling, however I found it an unnecessary addition.

The Calamari was one of the most tender I've ever had, with the ancho chili aioli making the dish better than it would have been with a traditional tzatziki sauce and elevated it to a fine dining level.

The Foi Gras with truffles was quite heavy with truffle, which overpowered the delicate flavour of the foi gras itself. I think they could have substituted some of the truffle with a lighter krimini or even portabello flavour to reduce the intensity of the truffles.

The Tiger Prawns in Chipotle Tequila butter had a nice selection of vegetables which accompanied them, and the prawns themselves were very well cooked and tender. The chipotle tequila butter was a bit of a let down however, the only real addition I noticed was the heat of the Chipotle which overpowered any tequila flavour. I also found the compound butter's flavour very one dimensional, and I think that reducing the amount af chipotle and adding a complimentary flavour such as Lime would have given the sauce a much more balanced and pallatable flavour rather than just adding the heat of the chipotles.

Lastly we had the Chorizo and Mushroom Tostada. This is a "pizza" type of meal made on tortillas to have a very thin crust. The house made chorizo was definitely an interesting twist to the dish, and it took a bit to get used to the foreign smell of the sausage.

Overall I would have to say that most of the food was trying a bit too hard to be ... Read Moremore than it was through over seasoning with specialty products (like truffles, chipotles and very strong chorizo). Not that it wasn't an enjoyable meal, but the menu gave the impression of up scale dining, and that really wasn't quite fulfilled in the completion of the dishes.

I should mention the atmosphere to give a complete review. La Bodega is located right downtown, in what I believe is a large classic home. The dining areas are quite cramped, and some of the tables are just barely large enough to hold 2 tapas plates and the small plates you use to eat off of. The clientele we saw were incredible diverse, making the dining experience slightly less enjoyable by the rowdiness of some of the restaurants patrons (I should mention however that this could have been a result of expectations arising from the preview of the menu, which seemed to promise a more upscale cuisine.)

Overall I give La Bodega a 7 out of 10, and that is simply because the pretentiousness of the menu was not lived up to in either the atmosphere or the execution of the dishes.

Britney Spears "Womanizer"; playing the blame game?

I guess I question the motivation behind this song simply because of the apparent hypocrisy it conveys. I have to say that this song and it's music video do nothing to promote respect for women, but to the contrary they actually degrade women to as little as objects for the use of men (the definition of a womanizer is a man who has numerous casual sexual encounters with multiple women - *paraphrased). This video is about how she won't fall for someone "like that", yet she dresses (or undresses) and acts in a manner that encourages just this action from a man. So really who is the womanizer? Is it the man who responds to the enticement, or the woman that encourages the behaviour?

If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.

There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.

I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.


Bob


(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)

Once again Quebec holds back progress in Canada.

I'm not going to mince words; I think the Bloc has no place in federal politics. PERIOD! There is no place on a Federal stage for a Provincial party to be elected. If you want to sit in the House of Commons I think there has to be a simple understanding that you must run candidates in all provinces of the Country.

Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.

I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.

Hey Quebec... Grow up.

Bob

With record profits for "Big Oil", how can they claim competition over collusion?

With record profits being recorded by companies like Exxon raking in 11.7 Billion dollars profit, Shell right behind at 11.5 Billion and 2 other major companies in the states (BP and conico) also raking in 9 and 7 billion dollars respectively.

So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?

The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.

Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!

Sincerely (from me to the Government),
Bob

The Order of Canada now means murder is acceptable.

With the Order of Canada being awarded to Henry Morgentaler, Canada has not only condoned the murder of innocent children but by the award it says that Canada believes that this is something to strive for.

This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.


In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.

"Worst Neighborhood in Canada" strikes again.

In a place that has made itself infamous with the problems of substance abuse (and all the crimes that follow it), we have people who say they encourage healthy lifestyles and yet through their actions promote the opposite. This is yet another black eye for the "Worst Neighborhood in Canada".

What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).

Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.

Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?

Ever more the cynic,
Bob

This is 12 years of "Liberal" Canada at it's finest.

Here is a kick in the pants for those intelligent enough to consider human life more important than an animals. In Canada you can be charged for killing an unborn deer, but not for killing an unborn child (for now that is, and with any common sense maybe the House of Commons will actually approve the unborn victims act to protect the people it claims to serve.) But it took 12 years of Liberalism being defeated by a minority Conservative government to have an issue like this addressed.

There is something seriously sick about a society that values the life of an animal over that of a human. Granted; animals are our responsibility to protect as good stewards of our resources, and it is even disgusting that anyone would consider killing a pregnant animal on purpose, HOWEVER after a fine and having hunting privileges revoked it’s case closed. On the other hand I COMPLETELY believe that the murder of a pregnant woman is by FAR more heinous than that of an animal, and the laws of the land should reflect the importance of those human lives.

Trying not to get swallowed up by the stupidity out there,

Bob

__________________________________________________________

For more info on this story I have include the lifesite article (and link) below;

In Canada You Get Charged for Killing an Unborn Fawn, but Not an Unborn Human Being

By Hilary White

VANCOUVER, As Canada's legislators prepare to debate Bill C-484, Canada's unborn victims of crime bill that was introduced in Parliament in November, conservation officers are reportedly "emotional" after having discovered three men in British Columbia who were hunting pregnant deer.
The three have pleaded guilty to violating the Wildlife Act after having shot two female deer, one of whom was found to have been pregnant with two fawns. The men have been charged with four counts against the Act, two for killing the two adult females and two more for the unborn fawns.
CanWest News service reports that conservation officers were "horrified" at the incident.
The deer season in British Columbia runs from mid-September to the end of November and the law prevents female deer from being included in the hunt. The officers believe that the deer were targeted specifically because they appeared pregnant.
Conservation officer Dave Jevons told CanWest that the case was "emotional," because the hunters appeared to be after the fawns for food or medicine. Some consider foetal fawns a delicacy.
John Hoff, head of Campaign Life Coalition British Columbia said the case highlights the "absurdity" of having laws that protect foetal fawns but not foetal human beings.
The Unborn Victims of Crime bill was condemned recently by the member for Halifax, Nova Scotia, Alexa McDonough, former head of the pro-abortion New Democrat party, who dismissed the testimony of the families of children killed in the womb as being motivated, through their grief, from a desire for revenge.
"In our democratic society, we have long decided that revenge is not a proper basis for drafting or adopting our laws," she said.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canada Unborn Victims of Crime Act Introduced in Parliament by Conservative MP
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112104.html