At a bipartisan dinner at the Hell’s Kitchen restaurant, U.S. Senators applauded Chef Ramsay’s decision to continue the use of fillet-busters.
Fillet-bustering is a culinary procedure whereby debate over a proposed piece of boneless meat or fish is extended, obstructing progress in a cooking facility.* The practice is commonly employed in Chef Ramsay’s kitchen, where contestants purposefully prolong heated arguments about the best ways to serve such dishes as filet mignon in order to prevent an unpalatable dish from being served to a hungry senator.
According to Ramsay, fillet-busters are useful for multiple reasons. “If a senator orders lobster and some idiot in the kitchen somehow cooks crab instead, then we should fish fillet-buster, and if the cooks mess up a plate of beef, then we steak fillet-buster,” he told Beagle reporters. “Otherwise, that disgusting failure of a dish will pass. And then those senators are gonna get the bill.”
The culinary and senatorial practice is not without its critics, however. Master chefs at the Culinary Institute of Senatorial Dishes in Los Angeles argue that fillet-bustering is neither sanctioned nor encouraged anywhere in the International Chef’s Constitution, which enumerates the fundamental laws of cooking that apply in any truly democratic kitchen.
In response to the critics, Ramsay explained that fillet-bustering foes are “useless and should get the fuck out of my kitchen.”
*”Fillet-bustering” should not be confused with the etymologically distinct “fillet-blustering,” which refers to the practice, established by celebrity chef Ramsay, of screaming belligerently at an incompetent cook, often with little effect. See Figure 1.
Figure 1: Gordon Ramsay fillet-blusters an incompetent cook in the Hell’s Kitchen restaurant.
Many politicians enjoy a good fillet-buster. Here, George H.W. Bush gladly accepts an extra-long fish fillet-buster.
The Bald Beagle 
Leave a Reply