Teresa Johnson:

FYI all,   I have been trying to load my pic since Jan.  I try about once a week, and it never works.... I'd love to show off my two beautiful dogs, and maybe even the flowers I've actually managed to grow this year.  Any tips for getting my pic to load, anyone?  PLEASE HELP!

Teresa, be sure you're completed all three steps for uploading a profile picture: 1. browse  2. update  3. save.  (On this subject, I have never been able to figure out the proper size parameters for profile photos.  Anyone have the answer to that mystery?)  What kind of dogs, Teresa?  Ricky is curious.

I feel 'we the panel' have more than ample cranium Horse Power tuned in to handle this perplexing topic, and the specific agencies/facts involved. My input on this is simple, and also a safety net of sorts if AIG some how buys the Federal Reserve with borrowed freshly printed Federal Reserve money, granting themselves a huge bonus just before the bottom drops out, causing chaos and panic. First let me say I am really enjoying learning from you folks. With that said, I would like to offer two things 'we the people' can do to help ensure a glitch or shortage of any type does not hinder our food supply from farm to kitchen table, with the added bonus of not ingesting pesticide residue or worse. Here we go...#1...Keep your eye on the ball and swing it like you mean it. #2...It may be a firm grasp of the obvious, but I feel we should all do our part to ease the burden we place on the current food supply chain by adding 'grow a small victory garden' to our chores every spring and summer, just as we mow the grass. The President imploring all able people to plant gardens in backyards, empty lots, windows, and anywhere the sun shines on dirt would be huge, and there are zero loans/gifts-o-money involved. The original call for 'Victory Gardens' during WWII inspired as many as 20 million Americans(I'm not sure who counted) to get on board and start a garden. Slightly different motives then maybe, but the same hoped for result of enough food being available so no one goes hungry. Soon we can all add to our vernacular 'silver queen corn', 'half runner beans', 'iceberg lettuce', 'october beans', 'better boys', 'wando peas', and so much more. This will also help to make family dinner time 'prime time' again, as it should be. Gip

 Imagine my surprise when looking up the word 'tact'(tact n. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending), and seeing a picture of our very own Sharron Smith. Cluck, flap, scratch a bit. Gip

 Allison, Bob, Sean, and ,

You really look good on the editorial page today and represent this panel well!  I thought your medley was more compelling than the Kass arrticle.  Kudos to all!

Sharron

Mark McClain:

Probably not, but what we definitely have is a perception by some in the public that our food is not safe enough, and we have political pressure to do something about it.

Mark,

I was happy to see you join in on this question.  I do wonder whether the concerns are perceptions or whether your lack of concern is a perception?  I think many recognize that the consumer protection system we used to have has been dismantled though informal methods, shackled by inadequate funding, and overwhelmed by the explosive inumber of imports.  I feel like I am playing Russian roulette with my family when I go to the grocery store.  Eating the "right stuff" is a fairly risky business these days.  

We may not think globally, but we are certainly eating globally.  You probably remember as I do a time when oranges were a special treat often found in our Christmas stocking ,when we had to use an encyclopedia to find out what a mango, kiwi, plantin, and guava looked like, and when the delight of eating fresh pineapple was known only by the very wealthy.  Increasingly food is imported from distant places with lower health standards or inadequate quality controls  and reach our shelves with no inspections or even spot checks.  The recent opening of unrestricted trucking from Mexico (just closed down) means food products placed on a truck in Mexico could reach stores in Roanoke with no quality or safety check at all!  

We currently depend on self-testing and monitoring by individual corporations.  While there are many ethical and honest companies, there are also scores of "Mr. Peanut"  who cut quality and safety expenses to the bone to sell at the lowest price.  There was a reason why these products went to commercial customers (big cans of peanut butter) and why some manufacturers sent inspectors to the facility before purchasing from this supplier--a product this cheap was too good to be true!   Self-monitoring did not work here; several companies knew the peanut supplier had serious quality problems but did nothing to warn the public nor the FDA or FAD.  A number of people were looking out for the bottom line and their own personal bottoms, but no one was concerned about public health and safety.  This "rule of the bottoms" rides the interstate highways to evey main street and threatens consumer safety.  

Sharron. 

Gibson Brown:

Imagine my surprise when looking up the word 'tact'

Gibson!

Are you going to charm school?  You are becoming quite charming and seem to be "hitting the green" more frequently!

Sharron

Ricky:

Generally they also take satisfaction and pride in knowing their products demonstrate a commitment to quality and public service in addition to an honest profit.  This is partly because for the most part they are ethical people, and partly because it is "good for business" to be respected and valued by customers.  Nick did not state it in those words, but we read that between the lines of his remarks. 

Two paws up, Ricky (and Nick)!

I would like to add  that businesses who exploit consumers are subject to expensive lawsuits.  Too many of these result in the wronged consumer gettling little to no redress, the lawyers getting richer and the company declaring bankruptcy (thereby avoiding paying altogether).  This isn't right or just, either.  We need some government reform.

Dave Hanson:

Teresa, be sure you're completed all three steps for uploading a profile picture: 1. browse  2. update  3. save.  (On this subject, I have never been able to figure out the proper size parameters for profile photos.  Anyone have the answer to that mystery?)  What kind of dogs, Teresa?  Ricky is curious.

Ah, Dave, it was the magic SAVE button at the bottom of the page that I was forgetting!  Thanks-I feel like an idiot, though!   

I have two dogs-Gabby, (Gabriella Snapcrackers) my 14 year old half blind, mostly deaf, neurotically anxious lab-shepard mix, black and tan coloring.  I'm afraid she's on her last legs, literally.  I'm approaching the end of her life with a "doggy hospice" mode-keep her comfortable, happy, and hope for the best.  She's been the most entertaining, crazy dog, and survived life with a household of adolescent boys pretty well. Her later years have been much quieter since the kids have left the nest, and she's enjoying her retirement.

Jinx is a true rescue that my husband and I agreed to foster for a brief time 4 years ago.  She's a pit bull mix that spent the first year of her life tied to a car in someone's yard. She had scars from possible fighting when she came to us, and was very underweight and skittish. She's completely won us over-the sweetest dog I've ever had.  She's been a great ambassador for her breed-when people see how friendly and sweet our "terrible" pit bull is, they tend to reconsider all the stories they've heard about the bully breeds.  She is, however, aggressively friendly, and just doesn't want to understand that not everyone thinks she's the center of the universe.  She's also incredible nosy, and her favorite pastime is killing all the moles, chipmunks and mice that she can find in our woods.  And, of course, chasing the squirrels-hasn't caught one yet.

Now that I've figured out the avatar thing, I'll put their pics up sometime.

Teresa

 Yo Teresa!

Look'in good!

Sharron

Three cheers for Teresa.  Woof woof woof!  Nice to have a face with the name and the thoughts.  We had a feeling it was the "save" step you were overlooking.  Call it canine intuition.  We hope Gabby has a happy, peaceful ending.  When the hind quarters start to give out, the end is probaby near.  We remember when old Cece (black Lab) rapidly went from leaping over downed trees, to stepping over them, to walking around them, to being helped over them, and finally just taking short and slow walks in the grass.  When she could hardly get out the door to the back yard, we knew it was time to say farewell.  [Dave says, "If you haven't read it, I recommend a little book called Good Dog. Stay. by Anna Quindlen.  It will make you cry, but in a good way.  She reminds us that we make an implicit pact with our pets: to let them go ('put them down') when it is time, and not to prolong their suffering because we love them so much that we cannot bear to say good bye."]

We wish Jinx good luck in her pursuit of squirrels.  Lib thinks they have no souls because they are "little devils" that torment her.  Yesterday on our daily walk in the woods, we met a doberman pinscher and a pit bull.  The fearless Miss Lib chased them both (at the same time), with benign intent, but at first they were unsure about that so they ran.  I did not participate in this foolishness and found it mildly worrisome, but fortunately there was no fighting.  They turned out to be nice dogs.  You are correct that prejudice against breeds is wrong.  There are few innately bad dogs but many badly socialized dogs, and that is mostly the fault of humans.

P.S.  Gabriella Snapcrackers?  Have you seen the dog food commercial about "Mr. Barky van Schnauzer?"  BOL [Barking Out Loud... with laughter and tail wagging]

                                                                           March Madness Post 

I feel that the current system of the regulation of food (and drug) safety needs as much rehab as our governmental oversight (or lack thereof) of our country's financial institutions.  Some fear "socialism" re the attempt to increase governmental intervention while we watch our economy fall apart and people sicken or die due to the very lack of the controls this administration is attempting to enhance.

Having participated in the spinach/salmonella outbreak in 2006, I can tell you that it was not as much fun as it sounded!

David MacKay, CEO of Kellogg, after his company lost approximately $7M due to the current salmonella contamination, appeared before Congress last week to beg for tighter and more efficient controls.  The "independent auditor" arrangement has created huge conflicts of interest (see PCA and it's "superior" ratings amidst its Georgia plant's dead rat population...) and has undermined attempts to adequately monitor safety.  President Obama, having promised to reorganize our food safety system, has initiated a commission to consider improvements.  We know that these improvements will involve greater government involvement, but the private sector's "independent auditors" have only served to worsen the problem.

The resulting system will never be perfect but is bound to be a huge improvement over our current regulatory structure.

GO DUKE!

Necessary reform! 

I intended to stay mum on this week's question, and then I realized I had something to say.  One of the many unfair charges against Liberals is that we "want government to do everything".  I do not want the government to do, be or fix everything, BUT since there is a constitutionally ordered Legislative, Executive and Judicial charged with running this country, I DEMAND that the government does its job and does it well.  The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and every law ever passed has a purpose and a service to offer a free, safe and relatively happy society.

I expect that since we have an FDA, USDA, SEC, FCC, etc. that they be funded to the levels needed to do the job intended; nothing more and nothing less.  We have the right to expect that inspections happen, that rules are followed, that products are as safe as is possible.  We do not have that now and we need to feel secure with our government entities and the way they are run.

If an inspection harms your business, if following the rules harms your business, then perhaps you do not deserve to be in business.  No one should have to die for a problem to be spotted. It is also grossly unfair to the many businesses that work diligently to serve us a good product.  Free Market, right or wrong is a bad strategy just as total government control/nationalization is a bad strategy for a free and prosperous society.  Oversight has an important role.  There is no perfect solution, but there is a middle ground that can give us a better outcome than we have now on MANY levels.

 First, to answer your question I believe this is a necessary expansion of regulation. We have seen in the past eight years an erosion of the government oversight that prevented tainted food and defective or dangerous drugs from finding their way into our supply chain. I would hope though that the additional measures mentioned by the president are applied in a measured and effective manner without the "overkill" that sometimes occurs. The question of regulation, in general, is one that is getting a great deal of attention because of the massive governmrent spending which is intended to keep our current deep recession from becoming a depression of the magnitude we experienced in the thirties. The appropriate amount of government rergulation is not easy to define. However when you don't have the appropriate regulation you know it and sometimes it is extremely painfull. Past efforts to reduce government regulation have proven to be extremely beneficial to the consumer, such as the government breakup of the AT&T monopoly in the eighties and the deregulation of the airline industry also in the eighties. These actions were initiated in the Regan administration and reflected a general need to get "government off our backs" which was a Republican war cry at that time. Now our problems with tainted food and drugs and the financial disaster we are currently dealing with are the product of a lack of regulation; we allowed  the pendulum to swing to far. Currently we must deal with the globalization of our chain of supply. If we prevent migrant laborers from harvesting our produce  we will be importing more produce from foreign suppliers. The American consumer will not tolerate an increase in price even if the produce is locally grown. Chinese suppliers sometimes do not take the need for quality seriously. Combining new circumstances with the greed based incompetance of our financial institutions presents the perfect storm. We need to step up our regulatory procedures to meet the challenges of long existing and  changed conditions.

 I find myself perplexed as I ponder whether to answer this week's question.  Should I decide to do so, I'll stand on the minority side as usual, and while I'm certainly not afraid of that position, I wonder if it's worth the bother.  I could easily have stood with Mark on page 3 because I thought he had a very reasonable post.  He seemed agreeable to evaluating and strengthening our inspection procedures where necessary, but he also acknowledged that our system can never be perfect and after a while of throwing money at the problem, we reach a point of diminishing returns.

I guess I'm just not up to speed on the issue.  Apparently, people are afraid to go to the grocery store, fearful of carrying some killer microbe back to their otherwise sterile homes.  I have read that by far the most likely place for food to be contaminated is when it is touched by our own hands, but I've also read that you can't believe everything you read.

Word has it that our food inspections have been woefully inadequate for (this is the strangest coincidence) exactly eight years!  Apparently the Republicans weren't content with taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people -- they wanted to poison us all in the process.  Kind of makes a person wonder where Republicans buy their groceries.  Do they have their own special store which stocks only untainted food?

No, we're not content to come together, evaluate our inspection procedures and make reasonable changes.  We have a perceived crisis and it must not be wasted.  We'll use it to condemn the greedy capitalists who are apparently trying to poison the very people who are buying their products.  Sounds like a decidedly uncapitalistic idea, but what do I know?

Is the business community perfect?  Of course not, but just because someone buys an occasional lemon doesn't mean that all car dealers are crooks.  Just because someone produced and sold some tainted food somewhere doesn't mean you local grocery store manager is your mortal enemy. 

Finally, why are we so quick to issue a blanket condemnation of the economic system that made us into the most powerful nation on earth?  And why are we intent on seeing government as an infallible white knight whose only reason for existence is to save us from those "evil corporations?" 

Clonnie Yearout:

Apparently the Republicans weren't content with taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people -- they wanted to poison us all in the process.  ...  Why are we so quick to issue a blanket condemnation of the economic system that made us into the most powerful nation on earth?  And why are we intent on seeing government as an infallible white knight whose only reason for existence is to save us from those "evil corporations?" 

Clonnie, your sarcasm in this post seems sharper than usual, and without any of your endearing wit.  We do not recall reading any comments suggesting that the government wanted to poison consumers during the George W. Bush years, or that all (or even most) capitalists are evil.  That sort of over-the-top exaggeration is not the wise and temperate rhetoric we have grown accustomed to reading beside your handsome face. 

This is part of our comment about this on Saturday:

We are not anti-business or pro-government.  We are for the People (and the canines).  Private businesses want to provide a profitable product.  That's the "bottom line."  Generally they also take satisfaction and pride in knowing their products demonstrate a commitment to quality and public service in addition to an honest profit.  This is partly because for the most part they are ethical people, and partly because it is "good for business" to be respected and valued by customers. 

Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that not all business owners, managers, and laborers share those ideal qualities.  The black sheep who exploit and endanger consumers give the whole flock a bad reputation.  Businesses have shown very little capacity to "police their own" except perhaps through competition (what we might call market Darwinism).  A lot of harm can be done to consumers and competitors in the meantime, and this is where the government needs to assert itself as the respresentative agent of the People with enforcement of regulations that establish standards and penalties.  

Ideally, the government balances the interests of business, labor, consumers, and the environment, reminding corporations of the importance of producing food and drugs that are not dangerous. 

Is that a "blanket condemnation" of capitalism?  The theme of our commentary, with excerpts here, is "respect, trust, and verify," with government providing balance, not shackling business or serving as an "infallible white knight" for consumers.  Government inspectors serve as referees, helping ethical food and drug producers (in addition to consumers) by blowing the whistle on cheaters.  We applaud the majority of producers and the economic system that values profit and customer service.  Good grief, Clonnie.  Take off the boxing gloves and have some cashews.  Woof!