Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: vaskidmark on March 16, 2013, 07:21:17 PM

Title: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: vaskidmark on March 16, 2013, 07:21:17 PM
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34579

POTUS passes up lunch with Senate Repubs because his "taster" was not available.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/14/obama-couldnt-eat-at-hill-meeting-without-taster-audio/#ixzz2NdF0mssG

Well, he did take a chance on the ice cream.

stay safe.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Scout26 on March 16, 2013, 07:23:28 PM
Wonder if the "taster" is covered under Obamacare?
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: MillCreek on March 16, 2013, 08:17:10 PM
I have read in a couple of books about the Secret Service that the 'taster' concept has been around for many years, long predating this Administration. 
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 16, 2013, 08:26:52 PM
Well, yeah.

I know Roman emperors like Julius Caesar had one, and the concept predates them.

In the words of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king!"
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: kgbsquirrel on March 16, 2013, 08:31:09 PM
I would have thought the concept be a bit out-dated. Isn't it easier (and safer for the SS) to plug some food samples into a portable chromatograph (or whatever apparatus that would be appropriate) to check for toxins?
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: AJ Dual on March 16, 2013, 10:02:52 PM
I would have thought the concept be a bit out-dated. Isn't it easier (and safer for the SS) to plug some food samples into a portable chromatograph (or whatever apparatus that would be appropriate) to check for toxins?

This.

What is Ricin supposed to taste like anyway? And IIRC, it takes a couple hours before symptoms arise anyway.

Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Waitone on March 17, 2013, 12:28:15 AM
No news.  A taster has been around for multiple presidents.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: French G. on March 17, 2013, 12:59:58 AM
I'll assume that the taster has been around for many presidents. If asked to blind guess, I'd say started in FDR years. So, no news. What is news to me is the president has no leadership. Sit around not eating because your taster isn't there like a 1st grader waiting for the bus? Wow. How about "I'm the president, I own the secret service, so lets say screw them, I'm eating lobster."

The whole concept is pretty offensive to me, just not his fault in particular. So we can assume all the man of the people crap of stopping restaurants out of the blue is all highly staged?
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: CNYCacher on March 17, 2013, 09:08:49 AM
"Here, eat this to make sure it's not poisoned."

That guy is either a true believer, or paid extremely well.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: MillCreek on March 17, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
On a documentary about Air Force One, I saw how the support crew wears civilian clothes and drive civilian vehicles around to a number of different stores in the greater Washington DC area to buy food for the aircraft.  This is to make it more difficult for someone to poison or contaminate the food for the passengers on the flight. I thought that was pretty clever.

I once met a guy who claimed to be on the service crew for AF1 back in the 90's and he said that the background check and vetting process for that was more thorough than his clearance to work on SAC nuclear bombers.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: MechAg94 on March 17, 2013, 03:37:02 PM
No news.  A taster has been around for multiple presidents.
1.  It is news, just not news that Obama hired a taster.  That position has been around.
2.  It is news that Obama is making excuses based on not having a taster.  That means he either needed an excuse or actually relies on the person.

I gotta think it would be easier to monitor the origin of the food and it's preparation than to hire someone to taste it.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Ben on March 17, 2013, 06:39:06 PM

The whole concept is pretty offensive to me, just not his fault in particular.

Okay, if the "taster" is a real thing, and by that I mean the common definition of someone who tastes for potentially poisoned food, then I'm with French on this is. Not just offensive, but abhorrent.

The US is supposed to be the epitome of freedom. A "food taster" is what I expect of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes of the worst order. I expect Lil' Kim in North Korea to have one, I wouldn't have even expected Castro or Chavez to have one. That our presidents have one is almost incomprehensible to me. Even if there are threats, our presidents should handle it another way besides finding a human guinea pig. We are supposed to value life more than that. And as for the guinea pig -- when does that get to be a fun job?  

I can only hope this is all a gross misrepresentation by the media.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: AJ Dual on March 17, 2013, 09:14:27 PM
Frankly, it's the technicalities of the position I complained about above that still bother me the most. Anything some well organized conspiracy would use wouldn't have a taste, and would work slowly enough to bypass the taster.

I'm thinking this job is kept around more for preventing nuisance attacks like some disgruntled kitchen staff dumping a bunch of salt, hot sauce, or some cleaning supplies into the food, or (insert bodily substance "X" here) than preventing actual poisoning by 'terrists or state-level actors.

Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: kgbsquirrel on March 17, 2013, 09:39:33 PM
Frankly, it's the technicalities of the position I complained about above that still bother me the most. Anything some well organized conspiracy would use wouldn't have a taste, and would work slowly enough to bypass the taster.

I'm thinking this job is kept around more for preventing nuisance attacks like some disgruntled kitchen staff dumping a bunch of salt, hot sauce, or some cleaning supplies into the food, or (insert bodily substance "X" here) than preventing actual poisoning by 'terrists or state-level actors.


Food quality taster is actually a reasonable, if not expected, sort of job. Simply from a caterer quality assurance point of view (or as my Mom would have put it, never trust a skinny cook) you don't want to be serving folks misprepared/seasoned food, and the only real way to check for that is through smell and tasting said food.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Triphammer on March 17, 2013, 09:44:30 PM
Maybe he's allergic to shellfish. Maybe he's keeping kosher. That's our current Whitehouse occupant's "thinking on his feet". Just like "the Secret Service stopped the tours".
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: kgbsquirrel on March 17, 2013, 09:46:08 PM
Maybe he's allergic to shellfish. Maybe he's keeping kosher halal. That's our current Whitehouse occupant's "thinking on his feet". Just like "the Secret Service stopped the tours".

(Sorry, it was too easy.)
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: Triphammer on March 17, 2013, 10:08:19 PM
Though it would explain why Bo isn't allowed on AF1 when B.O. is aboard.
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: lee n. field on March 17, 2013, 10:15:48 PM
Maybe he's allergic to shellfish. Maybe he's keeping kosher.

It's "halal", but nevermind.   

 [tinfoil]
Title: Re: A "taster"? Really?
Post by: vaskidmark on March 18, 2013, 09:44:12 AM
Food quality taster is actually a reasonable, if not expected, sort of job. Simply from a caterer quality assurance point of view (or as my Mom would have put it, never trust a skinny cook) you don't want to be serving folks misprepared/seasoned food, and the only real way to check for that is through smell and tasting said food.

That is what the chef is for.  They are not the cook, but QC before it goes out the door.

QC was not what POTUS apparently was referring to.  It might have been a poor attempt at a dig at the Repubs.  If so, it was in the poorest of (excuse the phrasing) taste.

stay safe.