The Fake Internet Court of Australia
THE PEOPLE v THE CHIZZA [2024] - Judgement
H3309/1
"Great Judge Rollo,
Make a ruling on whether or not The Chizza from KFC should exist. I think it's dumb and is pointless and needs to **** right off and never come back."
- Kyle18, 2nd Mar 2024.
It has come to the attention of this court that KFC has invented a thing called "The Chizza" and this week, I was sent a message on a motorsport forum of all things, to make a ruling on Kentucky Fried Chicken's apparently new invention. Firstly I am flattered to be called "Great Judge" because that helps to solidify the inherent silliness and seriousness The Fake Internet Court of Australia. This court is in a unique position in that it simultaneously asserts that it is both definitive, irrelevant, and igororable.
This fake internet court has been asked in the past to rule on whether or not pineapple belongs on a pizza (no, it doesn't), whether or not banana belongs on a pizza (no, it doesn't), and what the best pizza actually is (it is pepperoni and red onion). This court claims to therefore be qualified in this realm to answer this kind of question. The point of order contained in this application is whether or not The Chizza needs to exist. Before we can get to that point of order, we need to know what a Chizza is.
These then are the facts as the court sees them:
The Chizza appears to be no more than a flattish piece of chicken which is fried in the fast-food chain's signature batter of 11 herbs and spices, topped with pizza sauce, mozzarella cheese and pepperoni slices.
The 'what' of this case is pretty easy to establish. The 'why' of this case, became the subject of a Washington Post article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2024/02/27/kfc-chizza-review-chicken-pizza/
KFC’s Chizza is a chicken-pizza mashup with one looming question: Why?
- Emily Heil, Washington Post, 27th Feb 2024.
The article is quite reasonable in trying to attack both of the questions of 'what' and 'why'; so it doesn't need much in the way of discovery by this court. Let's not beat about the bush and attempt to call a 'spade' a 'square headed digging and hauling hand tool'; let's call this out for what it is. KFC have just invented a chicken parmi with a proprietary name.
Before judgement is pronounced, this court would like to thank our learned friends and esteemed colleagues, Hen Solo acting as counsel for The People and Marsha Mellow who acted as counsel for the defence.
With these known facts, the court is more than adequately armed to be able to make judgement.
Final Judgement:
Anyone who has been to an Ari in Australia or New Zealand in the past 50 years knows exactly what a chicken parmi is. We all know that a chicken parmi is an act of magic where you take a big chicken nugget and with the addition of sauce and cheese, are able to charge $18 for it. All that KFC have done here is made a slightly fancier chicken parmi and added it to their menu.
Maybe this is novel and new to an American audience but as someone who has been to many Aris, the fact that KFC has done this looks so blatantly obvious that it should have already been a fait accompli.
The art of putting things on top of other things is not new; nor is the art of putting food on top of other kinds of food. A long long time ago, in a land called 'the 90s', a pie shop on my way home from school sold a 'pizza meat pie'; which was the same idea as a Shepherds' Pie but with a layer of pizza on top instead of potato. This was brilliant. When the pie shop closed forever, all that was left was the idea, the memory, and the hope, that one day someone would reinvent pizza meat pie. Nobody has but chicken parmi is a very fine substitute.
It is the opinion of this court that The Chizza despite its ridiculous name, is inherently a brilliant idea. If as the Washington Post suggests, that The Chizza is disappointing, then that's fine as well and should be expected. What do you seriously expect from a fast-food chain which has disinterested teenagers working behind the counter? In some respects this court applauds poor customer service and quality because that equates to something being cheap.
If the Chizza ever comes to Australia then the name is already perfect. People have no problem in calling a proprietary object a weird name. KFC have sold a burger in the past called a 'Zinger'; so the name 'Chizza' doesn't seem at all out of place. Where this name excels is that it sounds like the nickname that you might give to someone called Charles, or who has the surname of Cheesman. If this was sold by KFC in Penrith, or Spotswood, immediately after closing time for pubs in the area, it is very easy to imagine a lot of drunk bogans yelling "Chizza!" at 1am in the morning. The fact that said bogans might have been kicked out of Panthers, where they could have already gotten an $18 chicken parmi, is a lesson in dramatic irony.
To answer the general point of order of whether or not the Chizza needs to exist. Probably nothing needs to exist but walking back from the concept of causa sui to the less absolute position of 'should' as opposed to 'need', then The Chizza is not a thing that does exist and should not. I am unlikely to ever come across a Chizza in person (because the truth is that even though I live within walking distance of a KFC, I have never been to that KFC); so it seems churlish to rule against it. The whole idea of proprietary parmi is likely inevitable and unless it actually is disgusting, this fake internet court is uninclined to rule against it.
Judgement is hereby made in favour of the continued existence of The Chizza, with absolute unqualified ambivalence towards it. In the words of Icona Pop as used in the KFC adverts "I don't care." That is all.
- ROLLO75 J
(this case will be reported in FILR as H3309/1 - Ed)
No comments:
Post a Comment