Eat Me Too

Happy Birthday - Whoever You Are!
No, this photo nothing to do with today's post, but I woke this morning thinking of cake.
And look, here it is...

Last night around 10:30 I finished writing "Eat Me".  A tale of children, the USDA, mold-encrusted applesauce (fed to the children under the watchful eye of the USDA) and mechanically-separated chicken food 'product'.  Perhaps this is why I awoke thinking of 'cake'?  Yeah, could be...  

Looking for something else 'completely different' this morning to ponder upon, I found this...

From Myrtle Beach Online, December 01, 2011: 

CHARLESTON -- Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that America’s health is a matter of national security and that she’s optimistic the Supreme Court will uphold the nation’s health care reform law.

During a visit to the South Carolina coast, Sebelius spoke with a black nurses group [Question:  Were Caucasian, Hispanic, Oriental, or Panamanian Nurses not allowed to attend?] and then was to attend a conference on improving access to health care.

The nation’s health “really is an issue of national security,” she told the nurses group, adding that a healthy, productive work force “is an essential part of our prosperity.”

[Moos Note:  Then, by extension of Kathleen Sebelius' logic, FAT people are a threat to our National Security?  Quick, someone get Richard Simmons on the phone - I need to be 'Sweatin' to the Oldies' with the rest of those spooky-looking folks in his ads from a few years' back.  I used to be big and strong, now I'm just, pretty much, BIG.  Maybe I ought to take Bossie for a walk today once the snow turns back to rain?]
...

She said keeping people healthy means less drain on paying for health care.

“Seven out of 10 deaths are caused by chronic disease conditions and 70 cents of every health care dollar is spent treating chronic diseases,” she said. “We spend eight cents - less than a dime - keeping people healthy in the first place.” 

Sebelius also said she’s optimistic the health care reform bill will be upheld by the high court, noting appeals courts have ruled both ways.

“I am optimistic it stands on solid constitutional grounds and that we will be able to get the green light and move forward,” she said.

I do find this last statement more than a 'little bit ironic' (or 'misleading' if you prefer) that Kathleen Sebelius is under the impression that once the Feds 'get the green light' they can 'move forward'.  Knowing that ObamaCare has been 'in process' since Congress passed this debacle back in 2009 - what parts of the legislation's impact has SHE missed?  A fair question as she's been a HUGE proponent for the past bunch of years.  And wait, won't she kind of, sort of, be responsible for running the program, or is that the IRS?  I get so confused... 

But hey, that's just my opinion.  What do I know?

Next, I found a related story on the New York Times Online dated, February 13, 2012:

Dr. Jodi Sterle, an expert on human reproductive management at Iowa State University, said no easy options when it comes to human dietary needs because feeding people is complicated by their hierarchical nature. “When they are raised in large community settings, there is competition for food, water and space, and especially for food,” she said.

Researchers have tried a method called trickle feeding, in which small amounts of food are put onto plates throughout the day, but dominant personality types tend to camp out by the table and push more passive humans away.

Another method uses a microchip embedded in an ear tag to manage the subject’s diet and feed him / her in a “cafeteria,” but people sometimes find ways of overcoming that technology, too. “Basically, there’s no science that provides the perfect answer right now,” Dr. Sterle said.

Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that it supported alternative feeding efforts to contain obesity. “Legislative leadership has expressed a desire to see changes in how people are raised,” she said. “Nutritionists and dietitian's are responding and modifying their recommendations accordingly.”

 

Oops, I am sow sorry, the section above was pulled from a New York Times' article addressing McDonald's commitment to not purchase pork from suppliers who do not treat their 'pigs' humanely.

How could I have possibly confused the care and treatment of cloven-footed livestock with anything the Obama Administration is doing to make our lives 'better'?  My sincerest apologies to any swine I may have offended.

I get the impression (and this must just be ME) that Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS, and members of Congress perceive us to be a lot like your garden-variety swine. 

• They tell us what we can eat. 
• They tell us what we can drink.
• They tell us what we can smoke (and if we dare smoke, how much we'll pay for it)
• They tell us that our exhalations include 'harmful greenhouse gases'
• They tell us, in general, how we can live

The major differences between our two species?

• Pigs don't vote
• Pigs don't pay taxes
• Pigs don't drive (well, at least they don't drive 'well')
• Pigs don't believe in inter-species dating
• Pigs are almost always happy (Including the moment when the nationa buyer for McDonalds calls to place that really HUGE bacon order)
• Pigs don't 'occupy' other pigs property based upon envy or hatred towards other, more-successful, pigs

You may call me a pig.  You may call me a cow.  You may call me a low-down rotten sow...

Just don't call me now.

I'm going to work. 

Have a nice day folks.

Oh, and for the record?  I only changed eight words in the article above from the NY Times discussing the care and feeding of pigs.  Swap a few words regarding animal husbandry, apply it to humans, and anyone can be a Progressive Liberal Democrat. 

Not that there's anything wrong with THAT. 

Eat Me

Part 1:  Eat our nuggets...

Raeford, North Carolina, January 30, 2012 -  A pre-schooler at West Hoke Elementary School did not eat the lunch her mother prepared for her. 

No big news here, right? 

Sometimes kids get picky. 

Sometimes kids get stubborn. 

Sometimes kids get Chicken Nuggets. 

Yeah, sometimes kids get to eat stuff that begins 'life' as THIS...

Mechanically-Separated Chicken for...
McNuggets!!!  Yumm-o!

In this instance, the child in question didn't want to eat Chicken Nuggets.  In fact, she didn't eat her intended lunch because it was taken away from her by the Inspector working for the Division of Child Development and Early Education - Department of Health and Human Services. 

Why?

Because the child's homemade Turkey and Swiss sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice did not meet published USDA guidelines.  Yup, this being the case, the 'lunch box inspector' deemed the meal provided for the child by her Mother to be 'nutritionally-challenged' and the inspector supplemented the meal by providing the girl three Chicken Nuggets (made from the pink 'goo' illustrated above).

To add insult to injury, the school then charged the parent $1.25 for the 'yummy' deep-fried mechanically-separated meat product it provided to her child (without the Mom's approval, consent, or knowledge in advance). 

But don't worry, it's really for the best.  No one takes care of you like the USDA - right?  Yeah, right. 

For the complete story, you can read it online here:  Carolina Journal Online

This, it turns out, is but Part One of the story. 

However, like they say on television at 2am Saturday morning, "But wait, there's more!!!"

Yes, more.   

More begins now.  

Part II: Green Applesauce - Eat it, eat it, yes you will...
(Do not read the following while eating, drinking, or operating heavy machinery.) 

MSNBC Online: November 4, 2011

FDA: Moldy applesauce repackaged by school lunch supplier

A Washington state fruit processor that supplies the nation’s schools and a baby food maker is under scrutiny by federal health regulators for repackaging applesauce contaminated with several kinds of potentially dangerous, multi-colored molds, msnbc.com has learned.

Food and Drug Administration officials this week posted a warning letter to Snokist Growers of Yakima, Wash., saying the company cannot ensure the safety of moldy applesauce and fruit puree that has been reconditioned for human consumption.


Products recalled earlier this year by Snokist were blamed for illnesses of nine North Carolina children who became sick after eating applesauce at school.


The latest warning came after FDA officials said Snokist failed to adequately address problems identified during a June inspection in which regulators found large, laminated bags of fruit products that were supposed to be sealed and sterile, but instead were broken open and tainted with white, brown, blue, blue-green and black mold. Some of the compromised bags were bloated and one had “a strong fermented odor,” the report said.

The FDA’s letter identified at least eight instances last year in which Snokist had reprocessed the moldy applesauce into canned goods for human consumption.  The inspection report said Snokist documents showed the company had reprocessed mold-contaminated applesauce at least 13 times between January 2008 and May 2011, repackaging food into 15-ounce cans, 106-ounce-cans, 300-gallon bags and 4.2-ounce, single-serve cups.

Cinammon on top? 
Or 'Commonous Mouldus Nasteus'?

On one hand (Part I), North Carolina elementary school food service folks are taking food away from 'small humans' in an effort to assure that they receive the daily-nutrional value required by the USDA.  This, regardless of what their parents pack for them.  Because when it comes to raising a child, "It takes a Bureaucracy". 

On the other hand (Part II), since North Carolina schools are buying prepared food 'in bulk' from the low-cost bidder, well, you HAVE to expect a little mold in your food.  I'm not sure how the USDA feels about this, but I'm sure that IF they had known about it...

Huh, what's that?

The USDA DID know about it?

KING5.com: Federal Inspectors Told to Ignore Moldy Food At Local Plant, February 13, 2012

The KING 5 Investigators have learned that federal inspectors complained for years about significant food safety violations at a Yakima plant but their superiors didn’t put a stop to it.

"I thought it was terrible because I have never seen anything like that in my life," said Jerry Pierce, a recently retired U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector who was assigned to the Snokist Growers plant in 2008. He said he watched Snokist employees “reprocess” and sell applesauce that belonged in the garbage bin.

“It's appalling that the company would take those measures just to make a few dollars," said Wendy Alguard, the USDA inspector who worked at Snokist from 2009 until the summer of last year.

Snokist Growers is a century-old cannery that processes and packages 50,000 tons of cherries, apples, pears and plums each year. The inspectors say that leaks in the packaging would cause 300 gallon bags of applesauce to spoil. Snokist would scrape thick mold off the top of the spoiled applesauce, heat-treat the remaining product and then send it down the production line for sale to the public.

The KING 5 Investigators obtained public records showing Snokist reprocessed more than 23,000 gallons of moldy applesauce in the year 2010 alone. Other records show Snokist's own consultant concluded in 2009 that the mold in applesauce "would not be eliminated by your firm's thermal process." Records show the company continued selling it to customers.

The inspectors (Moos Note: yes, the USDA Inspectors) say they repeatedly told their boss about the moldy applesauce.

"I guess they promised my boss they wouldn't do it again and within a week they were doing it again,” said Pierce.

"I had contact with my boss many times and he basically told me to mind my own business," said Alguard.
 
The USDA had inspectors in Snokist’s plant because the company is a major supplier to the national school lunch program. The USDA grades and certifies food deemed acceptable for school lunches. Alguard and Pierce say they did their best to make sure that reprocessed applesauce didn’t get into school lunch food.

Boys, girls, Moms and Dads, sit back and relax knowing that the USDA knows what's best for you and your kids...

Deep-fried chicken nuggets and moldy applesauce


Bon Appétit!!!
Just be sure to pay the helpful SEIU Cafeteria Worker on the way out...  Assuming, of course, that she's not on strike at the time. 

Darn Catholics

Last Friday President Obama told Catholics that he 'compromised' with the Church by 'caving' in to the Church's desire to NOT pay for contraceptives, morning-after abortion pills, and, presumably, out-right genocide of any type.  The issue, according to the President, was a matter of interpretation by Catholics and other religious leaders who opposed the legislation as a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  The actual reason for the dust-up in the Press and the Pulpit was due to the fact that, "They" just didn't 'get it'.  This isn't a matter of Constitutional breach, it's simply a 'misunderstanding'.  


So the President offered a compromise:  They would not have to provide contraception in their health plans, but female employees wanting coverage could obtain it directly from the insurance companies. The arrangement would not add any cost to the employee’s premium, the argument being that prevention of childbirth is cheaper than childbirth.


In their statement, however, the bishops say that among the groups needing “clear protection” from the contraception mandate are “religious and secular for-profit employers.” That would sweep in a far larger variety of organizations.

Richard M. Doerflinger, an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was asked whether that meant that a Catholic owner of a sporting-goods store who believed that use of birth-control pills is immoral should be able to offer health insurance excluding that coverage. He said it did.
 
“That person should have the freedom to choose the health plan that does not violate his convictions. It doesn’t mean he will be able to find it, but the government shouldn’t have anything to say about it,” Doerflinger said Saturday.

In addition, religiously affiliated insurance companies are not exempt from the mandate. Friday’s announcement also left unresolved what a Catholic-affiliated organization that self-insures and objects to contraception would do, as there is no insurance company to provide coverage directly to employees.   (Source:  Washington Post)



So what's a Petulant Progressive President to do?  What he always does when someone stands in his way...  He clears the field.

Yes, bust out the torches, rouse the malcontents, and grab them pitchforks!  It's time to destroy the Catholic Church.  

Seriously, what good are 'Minions' if you're not going to use them?  Oh, look, here comes a useful Minion now, writing for Reuters!


Reuters, 02/13/2012:  "Monsignors' mutiny" revealed by Vatican leaks

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Call it Conspiracy City. Call it Scandal City. Call it Leak City. These days the holy city has been in the news for anything but holy reasons.

"It is a total mess," said one high-ranking Vatican official who spoke, like all others, on the condition of anonymity.

The Machiavellian maneuvering and machinations that have come to light in the Vatican recently are worthy of a novel about a sinister power struggle at a medieval court.

Senior church officials interviewed this month said almost daily embarrassments that have put the Vatican on the defensive could force Pope Benedict to act to clean up the image of its administration - at a time when the church faces a deeper crisis of authority and relevance in the wider world.

Some of those sources said the outcome of a power struggle inside the Holy See may even have a longer-term effect, on the choice of the man to succeed Benedict when he dies.

From leaked letters by an archbishop who was transferred after he blew the whistle on what he saw as a web of corruption and cronyism, to a leaked poison pen memo which puts a number of cardinals in a bad light, to new suspicions about its bank, Vatican spokesmen have had their work cut out responding.

The flurry of leaks has come at an embarrassing time - just before a usually joyful ceremony this week known as a consistory, when Benedict will admit more prelates into the College of Cardinals, the exclusive men's club that will one day pick the next Roman Catholic leader from among their own ranks.

"This consistory will be taking place in an atmosphere that is certainly not very glorious or exalting," said one bishop with direct knowledge of Vatican affairs.

The sources agreed that the leaks were part of an internal campaign - a sort of "mutiny of the monsignors" - against the pope's right-hand man, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

Bertone, 77, has a reputation as a heavy-handed administrator and power-broker whose style has alienated many in the Curia, the bureaucracy that runs the central administration of the 1.3 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church.

He came to the job, traditionally occupied by a career diplomat, in 2006 with no experience of working in the church's diplomatic corps, which manages its international relations. Benedict chose him, rather, because he had worked under the future pontiff, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the Vatican's powerful doctrinal office.

...


The Vatican sources said some cardinals asked the pope to replace Bertone because of administrative lapses, including the failure to warn the pope that a renegade bishop re-admitted to the Church in 2009 was a well-known Holocaust denier.

But they said the pope, at 84 and increasingly showing the signs of his age, is not eager to break in a new right-hand man.

"It's so complicated and the pope is so helpless," said the monsignor.

The bishop said: "The pope is very isolated. He lives in his own world and some say the information he receives is filtered. He is interested in his books and his sermons but he is not very interested in government."

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...

So, according to Reuters and the Obama Administration, the Catholic Church has 'internal' issues, they certainly do NOT have an issue with the Executive and Legislative Branchs' 'perceived' violation of the First Amendment - that would be CRAZY...

Yup.  Crazy (with a capital CRAZE) 

And to make matters even more interesting, Jack Lew, President Obama's Chief of Staff, announced to the world that "the White House had done enough to appease religious critics". 


Washington Examiner, February 13, 2012:   HHS mandate shows fight in Catholic Church

President Obama's chief of staff said that the contraception mandate will not be revised any further, despite opposition from church groups, and he dismissed ongoing critics as revealing internal division within the Roman Catholic Church.

"I can't speak to differences within the Catholic Church," White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on Fox News Sunday when reminded that "the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country" was a denunciation of Obama's attempt at accomodation. "I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to  [provide] health care in this country," he added.

Lew argued that "people can disagree" with the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate "on the margins," but declared that the White House had done enough to appease religious critics. "I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties," Lew said.


That's right, the White House has "done enough to appease religious critics"...  Requiring insurance companies to give contraceptives away for FREE to anyone asking?  Why, that's tried and true old-fashioned-Obama-giving-more-of-other-people's-money-away-solution (just please don't ask who's going to be paying for these 'contraceptives' in their insurance premiums - that could get messy). 

As a card-carrying Catholic, I feel the need to turn the other cheek to President Obama's continuing assaults to our liberty, our religion and our God-Given right to bare our cartoon butts in our blog posts...

  So help me 'Bart'.

Depend

de·pend  [dih-pend]
verb (used without object)

1.  to rely; place trust (usually followed by on  or upon ): You may depend on the accuracy of the report.

2.  to rely for support, maintenance, help, etc. (usually followed by on  or upon ): Children depend on their parents, just as approximately 50% of households depend upon the Federal Government for subsidies.

3.  to be conditioned or contingent (usually followed by on  or upon ): America's success depends upon  the effort and ability (by roughly half of the population) to pay for the other half's lifestyle.

4.  to be undetermined or pending: the United States may become Europe or it may not, it all depends.

Yes.  It all 'Depends'.

I came across an article yesterday while eating lunch which gave me pause.  Surprisingly, it wasn't about Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum's status in the polls.  The aforementioned are 'temporary conditions', susceptible to the whims of marketing, Presidential Politics, the National 'mood', and mutually-assured personal destruction. 

The article I read had deeper roots. 

Evil.  Nasty.  Roots.

Excerpted from Investor's Business Daily Online:  The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

Source:  Investors Business Daily Online
(I added the Dotted red line above to depict the Dependency Index since LBJ launched his 'Great Society'
The Solid red line shows the end of the Bush term and the beginning of the Obama Administration)

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.

...

The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.

At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.

Other findings:

The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.

In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income. 

The truly 'spooky' part of this article is that only the first two years of the Obama Administration are tracked, and reported here.  Another year has passed since these numbers were reported. 


Yes, I know there are people reading this who will say, "Yeah, but Moos, this period represents the Economy President Obama INHERITED from President Bush.  These numbers are NOT the current President's fault!  It's President Bush's FAULT - it's all his FAULT!" 

[This, of course would be followed by a series of grunting noises, wildly flailing hands, and spittle flying in almost all directions at once as the 'True Believer' of the President works him (or her) self into a full 'lather'.] 

Okay, I understand your desire to cling to the failed Obama policies of the recent past, but let me ask you this:  "How do YOU explain the following chart of US Workers NOT participating in the work force?" 

The following chart tracks the number of "Persons NOT in the Labor Force" through January 2012.  That 'straight up' line over to the right of the chart represents the 1.2 MILLION people the BLS 'Discarded' to get President Obama's (published) Unemployment Rate down to 8.3%

Source:  ZeroHedge.com

Why are the 1.2 MILLION 'eliminated workers' from the work force important?  Read on my friend, read on...


Source:  ZeroHedge Online...  A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million.

No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. 


So, if you believe that the President 'Inherited' the bad economy, how do YOU explain the fact that while adding MILLIONS of Americans (in spite of the best efforts of Planned Parenthood, Unions, and Democrats to reduce our population ) over the past 30 years -- the Civilian Labor Force has shrunken to its lowest level during the same 30 year period?

'Fuzzy Math', or Federally-Sponsored Deceit? 

You pick. 

Oh, and while I'm asking the questions which no one seems to be able or willing to answer, let me ask you yet another question:  "Will America survive another four years of President Obama's rule?"

Well, it Depends. 

Depends on if he stays or goes, and what the Congress looks like following the upcoming elections. 

Because once again - you get to pick.  In November, 2012, you get the opportunity to fix the problem OR grow it.  Your call.

Have a nice day folks.