White House serves heart attack on a plate

[Miss_Kitt]

Er, um?

Could we see a show of hands of people who think that Senators are going to be put in a convival and cooperative mood by being served tofu and sprouts? A low-meat stirfry?

The purpose of the function was to schmooze Congressional leaders, so IMHO the Administration (whomever is in office) should find out what they like, and serve it to 'em. You don't take a business contact to McD's or Whole Foods for lunch.

Having said that, let me add that I can't imagine why the menu at the White House is of much interest to anyone, unless it contains an endangered species...I mean, honestly, is there nothing else for the Press (or this forum) to talk about?

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[Monketi Ghost]

So we have the debt, the financial crisis, two wars. Big Three smelling of farts, unemployment, international ill-will, terrorists bent on killing us, etc. and so on and on... and people who don't like Obama criticise his meal choices at the White House.

If it had been McCain/Palin, they'd be dining on the flesh of formerly happy children each night, you know... but they'd at least be American children...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Apparently the Obama White House and preferences of the first-eater and his family are of major interest in some quarters:

Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jan. 20, 2009
-BY: Karen Herzog

Sources:
Honolulu Advertiser
www.obamafoodorama.blogspot.com
www.npr.org; usliberals.about.com
The New York Times

The new first eater casts himself as a political centrist, open to a variety of viewpoints.

But there's only one executive chef at the White House, {well not quite, see below} which means one culinary vision. First lady Michelle Obama has decided to keep chef Cristeta Comerford, a native of the Philippines who took the job in 2005 and is the first woman to serve in that position.

What kind of culinary example can foodies expect the kitchen of a Barack Obama administration to set for America, and the rest of the world?

Will we see a parade of visiting chefs offering their own interpretations of American cuisine, in keeping with the president's philosophy of inclusiveness?

Will the first family embrace their role model status to encourage families to connect around
the dinner table and to make healthy food choices?

Elected on a promise of change, Obama didn't have a platform for changing the way America eats. But America's first black president - known for his devotion to fitness and regular exercise - undoubtedly will lead by example.

"Everything he puts in his mouth is getting scrutinized," said Eddie Gehman Kohan, a Los Angeles-based food writer and agriculture policy "wonkette" who launched the "Obama Foodorama" blog (www.obamafoodorama.blogspot.com) the moment CNN called the election for Obama.

http://www.jsonline.com/features/food/37885829.html





On the subject of adding a new WH Chef, there’s this….

Michelle Obama has asked Sam Kass of Chicago to join the White House Culinary Staff as the first family’s private chef.

The following sorta contradicts the serving of Kobe beef at a cocktail party….oh, no, he's the Obama family private chef. Sorry.

Chef Kass is a new kind chef. Gone are the massive heavy sauces, the calorie laden entrees and the near death-by-chocolate desserts. Chef Kass uses healthier ingredients that are purchased, whenever possible, from local vendors.

So who decided on the Japanese beef? And even if the fat in Kobe beef were healthier than U.S. beef and BSE tested to boot, there are other choices including chicken and pork dishes to consider. Oops sorry...that's the family's private chef who is gonna cook healthy and buy locally. For congressmen, it's Kobe beef and expensive dishes. I get it now.

On the subject of BSE testing it is my understanding that downer cattle trigger testing of herds for prions in the U.S. A flock of lamb I believe in Conn. was destroyed not too long ago after routine testing for a prion disease, scrapie.

 

[WildCat]

Er, um?

Could we see a show of hands of people who think that Senators are going to be put in a convival and cooperative mood by being served tofu and sprouts? A low-meat stirfry?

The purpose of the function was to schmooze Congressional leaders, so IMHO the Administration (whomever is in office) should find out what they like, and serve it to 'em. You don't take a business contact to McD's or Whole Foods for lunch.

Having said that, let me add that I can't imagine why the menu at the White House is of much interest to anyone, unless it contains an endangered species...I mean, honestly, is there nothing else for the Press (or this forum) to talk about?

Just my thoughts, MK

Couldn't the same be said of Wall Street execs wooing potential clients? Wall street had 1 bad year, the US government is working on decades of deficits.

Goose, meet gander.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sounds like alcohol.

I have rum and coke every Friday night. Would our society be better off if we as a society declared that alcohol is taboo and instilled into people fear of the potential consequences?

It's actually whatever your problem is. If you drink one drink a week obviously alcohol is not a problem. If you drink three milk shakes a day then milk shakes are your problem.
Alcohol = bad = for over users and abusers, ditto for milk shakes. You can deny
alcohol or milk shakes are inherently bad, but they are BAD for alcoholics and the obese respectively.

So if your dietician tells you milk shakes are bad for you since you weigh 350# then they are. If you weigh 125# knock yourself out.

This is a special situation. You can't generalize that everything is "not bad" when it is for a lot of people for reasons which are obvious.

 

[BPSCG]

At least they weren't serving sea kittens.

 

[SteveGrenard]

At least they weren't serving sea kittens.

PETA sorta tried at the Super Bowl. What these people could've been thinking is beyond me:

Meanwhile, NBC has declined to air a commercial made for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) during the Super Bowl. The commercial, which I have seen and enjoyed, is definitely "pro-veggie," as it is described in news reports. It has been pulled from the broadcast by NBC Universal's advertising standards department because it "depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The brief ad, which was intended to carry the slogan: "Studies Show Vegetarians Have Better Sex," involves lingerie-clad models showing their enthusiasm for vegetables. One sequence shows an actress rubbing her pelvic area with a pumpkin. What she does with asparagus is even more interesting. NBC says it couldn't possibly air this material. PETA says, "PETA's veggie ads are locked out, while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed, even though these foods make Americans fat, sick and boring in bed."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090128.DOYLE28/TPStory/TPComment

 

[BPSCG]

PETA sorta tried at the Super Bowl. What these people could've been thinking is beyond me:

Really?

Here's what they were thinking:

"Okay, a single 30-second ad on the Superbowl will cost north of $2.5 million. But if we make the ad so raunchy that the network rejects it, we have a PR bonanza. People will be saying, 'Hey, didja see that PETA ad that NBC rejected? It's supposed to be really hot.' And it'll be all over youtube for months and millions of people will tune in. And that's free. Thank you, NBC!"

It's smart. Damned smart. I wish I had thought of it.

 

[RandFan]

It's actually whatever your problem is. If you drink one drink a week obviously alcohol is not a problem. If you drink three milk shakes a day then milk shakes are your problem.
Alcohol = bad = for over users and abusers, ditto for milk shakes. You can deny
alcohol or milk shakes are inherently bad, but they are BAD for alcoholics and the obese respectively.

So if your dietician tells you milk shakes are bad for you since you weigh 350# then they are. If you weigh 125# knock yourself out.

This is a special situation. You can't generalize that everything is "not bad" when it is for a lot of people for reasons which are obvious.

Your post has only left me more confused and has not clarified anything. In fact it seems to conflict with your thesis. Unless I'm wrong you declared that some things are bad because we like them so much we keep on eating them.

Now you are saying that some foods are only bad in some contexts. Is that correct? If so then what is the message you want to convey that if you have a problem then consider what you consume? Wouldn't it be better to teach good habits from the beginning?

I'm sorry to keep going back to my anecdote but I think it is of some benefit. Given that obesity runs in both my wifes family and mine it would seem that my children have a good propensity for obesity. All three had significant weight problems. However two of them have gotten down to their goal weights and both have a healthy view of their bodies and food. They don't eat sweets every day and they limit their intake but they pretty much eat basically ordinary food. We've cut back significantly on red meat, increased the amounts of fresh vegetables and high calorie high fat foods and have found good tasting meals that tend to be lower in calories.

I have been able to stabilize my weight and have been losing weight. I'm enrolled in a UCLA medically managed weight loss program FWIW. My one concern is my oldest son who isn't obese but he is overweight. He hasn't adopted the habits we've instilled in his siblings. It might be because we started too late. But we've not given up.

One of the problems I have with the notion of taboo foods is that it is overly simplistic and doesn't deal with the actual problems. We can label foods bad just as we've labeled drugs "bad" but I'm not convinced that is any kind of solution and I suspect that it causes more ill effects than good ones.

Stating that an alcoholic should abstain from alcohol doesn't necessitate calling alcohol bad. It only takes a realization that a person has a problem and that person needs to confront the problem not come to see alcohol as evil. I just don't get the point of that.

And I think it is much worse when it comes to food. We have to eat. Saying "cake bad" and "carrots good" often just makes a person fill deprived and has the very real potential of causing binging (my case) or anorexia and bulimia.

I don't know it for a fact but I think had I had the opportunity to have been raised the way my two youngest were raised with a healthy attitude toward foods and avoidance of drawing too much attention to weight (I went on a lot of crash diets when I was young including diets like Cambridge) that caused me to rollercoaster between severe calorie restriction to binging I seriously doubt I would be obese today.

Let me hasten to add that my experiences and those of my children are anecdotal. However, having done the reaserch and having been through what I have I believe the weight of the evidence is on my side. No pun intended.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

So who decided on the Japanese beef? And even if the fat in Kobe beef were healthier than U.S. beef and BSE tested to boot, there are other choices including chicken and pork dishes to consider. Oops sorry...that's the family's private chef who is gonna cook healthy and buy locally. For congressmen, it's Kobe beef and expensive dishes. I get it now.

Have we even established that this was Japanese beef yet? The fact that they refer to it specifically as Wagyu and not Kobe Beef makes me think not. Kobe beef is basically a brand name -- it's Wagyu beef from Kobe, which is the most famous Japanese "brand" of wagyu. I suppose it could be wagyu from another part of Japan, but it would make little sense. If they weren't going to eat the famed Kobe beef, they might as well buy it from a U.S. producer.

 

[Lonewulf]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, one second, Steve Granard. Let me compose myself and respond to your posts with the honor and respect that you are due.





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[jj]

This is an issue?! You've got to be frakking kidding me.

Of all the things to get pissed off about, "White house serves fatty, expensive dinner" doesn't exactly rank near the top.

It does if one, like Rush Limbaugh, is determined to make this president a failure, regardless of its effect on the nation.

It's all part of hating America unless it's a religious theocracy, or whether it has free oxycontin, or whatever...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Have we even established that this was Japanese beef yet? The fact that they refer to it specifically as Wagyu and not Kobe Beef makes me think not. Kobe beef is basically a brand name -- it's Wagyu beef from Kobe, which is the most famous Japanese "brand" of wagyu. I suppose it could be wagyu from another part of Japan, but it would make little sense. If they weren't going to eat the famed Kobe beef, they might as well buy it from a U.S. producer.

The only "clue" regarding the source of the steak comes from Rush Limbaugh although we don't know if he is being facetious or not. This is from his website:

I am prepared to go up to the White House and have an adult beverage and some wagyu beef appetizers, which he served last night. That's American Kobe. I'm willing to go up there and share an adult beverage and some Wagyu beef to persuade him of the wisdom of my plan. I am prepared, ladies and gentlemen, to reach out to President Obama -- to explain the bipartisan Obama-Limbaugh plan to him, to help bring the nation together, under a true stimulus plan.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012909/content/01125108.guest.html

Someone, sooner or later, is going to find out where the meat was purchased and leak that information. One would think if it was an American farm then they'd want the PR. Such as....

http://www.kobe-beef.com/

 

[tkingdoll]

This is the pettiest thing I've ever seen.

What else? Protests about the serving of Champagne in the White House because you can get all-American 'sparkling wine' from Wal-mart? What if the president is wearing a tailored suit on the world stage? He could have a got one off the peg at Wal-mart too.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Now you are saying that some foods are only bad in some contexts.

Everything must be in context, what we eat likewise. It has no relevance out of context. For the context is keeping markedly obese patients alive. I have never had one who didn't have severe sleep apnea often w/severe hypoxemia, hypertension and be at risk of congestive heart failure. Many have prolonged pauses between heart beats as well.

Frankly I am not involved with diet, just critical issues like breathing while asleep and staying out of CHF. My lab provides dietary literature from the NYC Health Department and couple those messages with how dangerous or precarious one's health becomes once they are markedly overweight. Our techs collect up to 900 pages of data overnight in the sleep lab documenting this. When I have overweight patients who have breathing difficulties (sleep apnea and hypopnea)more than a hundred times an hour while asleep or trying to sleep (usually they wake up, otherwise they would die) it is time for them to wake up to the problem.

 

[shadron]

1. I doubt that Obama had any input into he menu to be served. You think maybe he may have been more worried about the stimulus package than what he would be getting for hors d'oeuvres? Perhaps his imput was li9mited to was just making a non-verbal statement about Kansas beef needing a few billion to keep up the good work.

2. From the looks of him I doubt he's seen very little of the innards of this sort of cow. Just because people may be well off doesn't say that they always eat $58/lb foods.

3. The White House event was, according to you, a "cocktail party", which means the beef may have made its way into some canape drek, to keep the vermouth company. That may have amounted to supper for a lot of the people there, but unless they were sneaking down to the kitchen in droves, I doubt there were any heart attacks hastened much by the affair.

4. This sort of meat (in fact, any sort of meat, from water buffalo to road-kill dingo) would have been considered pure gold out on the Serengeti half a million years ago. Just because we don't need to indulge ourselves in it whenever it is presented does not mean it is "dangerous"; it only means that along with a lot of other things we should have learned prudence. Even the RC frowns upon against the 7 deadly sins, one of which is gluttony.

5. Get away, a few times a week, Steve, from the fat people and get out into the country. Eat a few worms, dig up some tubers, snarf a few berries (but not the blueberries, you can get shot for that in most of NA). Just don't drink the water. Do some pushups in the meadow breeze. Try out the high life. It'll make a non-hypocritic of you.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am sure your avatar felt the same way. We lost him much too soon.



John Candy
AKA John Franklin Candy

Born: 31-Oct-1950
Birthplace: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Died: 4-Mar-1994
Location of death: Durango, Mexico
Cause of death: Heart Failure
Remains: Buried, Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, CA

To hear John Candy himself describe it, he went too quietly.

The good Lord obviously didn't take a likin' to him.

*AHEM*
Back on topic, when President Obama is going on the attack against Wall Street execs, condemning them for having too much, 60 dollar a pound steaks does come across as hypocritical.

That being said, Obama is the "Leader of the Free World", he likely has too much on his plate (pardon the pun) to be the guy who picks the menu.

 

[RandFan]

Everything must be in context, what we eat likewise. It has no relevance out of context. For the context is keeping markedly obese patients alive. I have never had one who didn't have severe sleep apnea often w/severe hypoxemia, hypertension and be at risk of congestive heart failure. Many have prolonged pauses between heart beats as well.

I'm 47, 460, good blood pressure, good cholesterol, no sleep apnea, no diabetes and a strong heart. My doctor says I shouldn't take too much comfort from that since obesity will still significantly shorten my life span. I've just been lucky up until now.

In any event, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm still fuzzy on your position but that's fine. I can let it go.

 

[RandFan]

I am sure your avatar felt the same way. We lost him much too soon.

I missed this post. I agree. I cried when Candy died. If we are going to be honest we should also point out that John Candy also had a major cigarette addiction.

Jim Morrison, Billie Holiday, River Phoenix, Jim Belushi, Jannis Joplin...All died too soon but I'm not sure labeling drugs or alcohol as bad is really the best solution and you've yet to make an argument in favor doing so other than noting that these activities are inherently risky. I agree wtih that.

Christopher Reeve died too soon as a result of injuries riding a horse.

James Dean died too soon from injuries sustained from driving his Porch.

What is your point?

We know that some behaviors are inherently risk. I can see labeling cigarettes as inherently bad but I can't see labeling specific food, alcohol or even drugs as inherently bad.

 

[gumboot]

From the perspective of an objective observer, while the mild hypocrisy of serving expensive food at a dinner about the economic crisis may be amusing, it hardly seems worthy of particular note, and seems to be more of a condemnation of US Government in general, not one particular individual President. (I can only assume this sort of meal is the norm for such government functions).

Having said that, this seems to be no less petty and irrelevant than some of the stupid stuff that was brought up in the last eight years to discredit Bush, so this doesn't surprise me in the least.