Friday, November 04, 2016

Low carb snacks in the Kitchen

Betty did her wellness visit today (yearly physical) and found out she needs to watch carbs because she's borderline diabetic. 

So I told her I'd note some low carb foods for snacks here.

Olives have very little carbs.  You can eat a ton of those.

Pickles have very little carbs.  (Check to make sure on fancy ones that go beyond just dill or sour.)

Pork Rinds have very little carbs.

There is a bread made out of oats that you can find at the store that has only 7 carbs a slice (that's huge if you know how bread usually has 22 or more carbs a slice).

Mission makes a tortilla that is low carb.  I believe it's 13 carbs a tortilla.  It says 7 on the plastic cover -- front cover -- but that's incorrect if you look at the information on the back.

Beef jerky, pepperoni slices, pretty much all meats (watch for fried meats or battered meats) are low carb.

Pecans are a good low carb nut.

Avocados are low in carbs.

Eggs are low in carbs.

Now many of these may increase your sodium intake so if you have blood pressure issues you'll be left to wonder -- carbs or sodium?

Celery and cucumbers have very few carbs.

You'll need to watch out for some snacks that you'd think would be helpful.

For example, Quaker Oats is an upstanding company.  But there mix is high in carbs -- an individual serving bag of it has over 30 carbs (and even more carbs than a similar size bag of Gardettos).

So there are a few ideas.

Now I hope you'll check out Alan Nassar's piece at CounterPunch.  Here's an excerpt:

In the recent Wikileaks revelations confirming Hillary Clinton’s duplicity, one of the clearest disclosures of her policy plans concerns her intention regarding Social Security. She stated that she would return to the position of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, charged with producing recommendations for reducing the deficit, i.e. cutting government social spending.

The Commission, or “Simpson-Bowles committee”  -named after co-chairs former Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson, and Erskine Bowles, former Morgan Stanley board member and chief of staff under Bill Clinton-  was appointed by Obama in 2010. Among its members were some of the most persistent deficit hawks. Most significantly, the Commission was stacked with leading enemies of Social Security flailing their arms over the “impending insolvency” of the program. The day before his appointment as co-chair, Simpson said in an interview with the Washington Post: “How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us.” (Feb. 17, 2010) In a later e-mail he described Social Security as “a milk cow with 310 million teats,” and had characterized its beneficiaries as “greedy geezers.” Bowles’s record was in line with Simpson’s. He had earlier negotiated with Newt Gingrich how best to cut safety net programs. The ultimate objective was to privatize Social Security.

In a rare moment of candor, a then-editor of The New York Times, Fred Brock, wrote an article critical of the Social-Security-is-going-broke alarmists titled “Save Social Security? From What?” (Business section, November 1, 1998). Brock attributed the faux hysteria to “hidden agendas…..Wall Street would love to get its hands on at least some of the billions of dollars in the Social Security trust fund . . . But knowing that the idea [of full privatization] won’t fly politically, [politicians] are pushing for partial privatization, in which individuals would invest a portion of their contribution in the stock market, all in the name of rescuing the system.”

Bowles’s efforts to undo Social Security through “partial privatization” began during the Clinton regime. The left-liberal economist Robert Kuttner, in his 2007 book The Squandering of America, detailed how Washington elites of both Parties had been planning to weaken Social Security since the Clinton Administration. Steven Gillon’s 2008 book The Pact included letters and interviews with reliable sources illustrating Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s collaboration to get Congress behind a plan to begin turning Social Security’s so-called trust fund over to Wall street, which would manage, for a fee, retirees’ benefits. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had prodded the president to work with Gingrich not merely to reduce benefits and extend the retirement age, but to begin the privatization of Social Security. Clinton appointed Bowles as his intermediary. But the Monica Lewinsky scandal caused both embarrassed Congressional Democrats and Gingrich to distance themselves from Clinton. The privatization plan fell apart.

A waiting game was now under way.

Don't come crying to me when she destroys Social Security.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:

Friday, November 4, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions between Iraq and Turkey continue, Barack Obama claims all US troops were pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and much more.

Susan Jones (CNS NEWS) reports:

Speaking in Jacksonville, Florida on Thursday, President Obama repeated something he's said elsewhere on the campaign trail: "We've brought our men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Well, damn, someone forgot to tell the US military.

Two US service members were killed and two more injured in Afghanistan.

And Corey Dickstein (STARS & STRIPES) reports, "A unit of Fort Bragg soldiers will deploy this winter to continue the U.S.-led mission to train that nation’s security forces as they fight the Islamic State group, the Army announced Thursday.":

1,700 US Army troops deploying to Iraq to ‘advise & assist’ local forces

"We've brought our men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan."

No, you haven't.

You have failed, yet again.

Just like you failed throughout your life, Barack.

You have failed.

Golden opportunities are handed to you and yet you fail.

Over and over.

You told the American people -- with weasel words, yes -- that if you were elected president in 2008, you'd end the Iraq War.

You did not.

You are a liar.

As you fly around the country, let's see what else your pampered ass forgot.

Oh, yes, many things.

But let's look at veterans.

Gregg Zoroya (USA TODAY) reported in August:

Despite a promise to end veteran homelessness by 2015, the Obama administration announced Monday it is nearly halfway to that goal.
[. . .]
 White House spokesman Eric Schultz acknowledged that President Obama did not meet his goal, but he also “knew it was ambitious.” Schultz said Obama remains proud of the progress made.

You make a promise, you don't keep it, and then the excuse is, "Oh, well it was 'ambitious'."?

Maybe if he'd take his pampered puss back to DC -- where he belongs -- and get off the campaign trail, he could work towards completing that promise?

He's not running for re-election.

Why are the American people footing the bills for Barack to campaign for Hillary?

Not only is he not in DC where he belongs, we are paying the bills for Secret Service agents to protect him at one crowded even after another.

We, the American tax payers, are footing those bills.

Not the Clinton campaign.

They're not paying the costs.

Barack has crossed the line repeatedly with remarks about the Republican candidate.

His ass needs to go back to DC and the Clinton campaign needs to publicly pay for the cost of protecting Barack at these rallies and on the road while he has campaigned for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

FBI finds Hillary emails on Weiner's laptop — and they're not duplicates

FBI Finds Emailed Related To Time as Sec of State, NOT duplicates old emails

⚠️Hillary is unfit! She used Gmail when discussing Tripoli, Libya, Iraq & Podesta scolded her‼️

Poor Hillary.

So crooked.

So incompetent.

I love THE GUARDIAN's latest garbage.

We're not linking.

The FBI, the rag insists, is being partisan.

And then they explain that FBI agents were outraged that Hillary faced on consequences for her e-mail violations.

That's not partisan.

That's being outraged by injustice.

And it's the same outrage that the majority of Americans expressed when the decision was announced.

Meanwhile Brett McGurk is just one of  the many cheating men Hillary has supported over the years.  She loves a bad boy.  What that would mean for US foreign policy remains to be seen.  Brett's now Barack's Special Envoy.

Milestone: Iraqi forces enter eastern neighborhoods of this morning. New advances on all axes. Ways to go, but ahead of schedule.

21 or so days later and they're finally entering (eastern) Mosul.

If the Iraqi military were made up of toddlers, we'd all be applauding their newly learned ability to walk.

But they're not toddlers.

And 21 days or so later and they still haven't liberated Mosul.

Mosul was brought up in yesterday's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Mark C. Toner.

QUESTION: On October 22nd, on the outskirts of Mosul in Iraq, there was a coalition strike, which killed eight civilians according to a family member of the deceased. The coalition confirmed the strikes – the strike and they said that they’re investigating the casualties. I heard you – Mr. Kirby say, I remember, one civilian casualty is too many. Is it the policy – is it the U.S. policy or is it something you say?

MR TONER: I’m sorry. You’re saying is it our policy to -- or is it --

QUESTION: One too many.


QUESTION: When you say one civilian casualty is too --

MR TONER: Not at all. I mean, it’s not something we simply say. Let me clarify that. We take any civilian – let’s put it this way – any credible allegation of civilian casualties very seriously, and we investigate it thoroughly. That’s, again, the Department of Defense, and frankly, we hold that standard up to any other military in the world in terms of both following up on any credible allegation of a casualty or civilian casualty event and taking appropriate action with respect to consequences.

QUESTION: There is evidence that the civilian casualties are happening. So when you say, “one is too many,” do I understand it too literally? Should I not --

MR TONER: Again, recognizing – so two points to make here: One is that whenever we carry out a military strike, whether it’s part of the coalition or not, we take every effort and take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, to the point where we will choose sometimes not to take strikes against known enemy targets because it puts civilians at risk. We’re pretty scrupulous about that.
That said, this is kinetic warfare, and sometimes accidents may happen. And when they do and there are credible reports of civilian casualties, we investigate those reports very thoroughly. And in fact, I mean, I think Kirby spoke to this yesterday at the Foreign Press Center, but we have a number of events, allegations – credible allegations of civilian casualty incidents that we’ve investigated and reported on and even posted the findings on Department of Defense website.

QUESTION: Well, the U.S. argument against Russia’s actions in eastern Aleppo was that the fight against terrorists there was not worth the civilian casualties, not like that in Mosul. Do you think it’s worth it? I mean, there is evidence that they’re happening. And my understanding is that the operations are at their beginning. So it’s just --

MR TONER: So – and I would make this clarification. What we have seen – and I think we’ve talked about this a fair amount last week – what we have seen in around Aleppo are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, civilian targets that raise questions whether these are deliberate targets.
With regard to our operations in and around Mosul, of course we’ll investigate and look into any credible allegation of civilian causalities. And I’m not sure what the status of this particular event that you’ve raised is, but if it’s a credible allegation we will investigate it. We don’t see the same on the Russian side, and certainly not on the Syrian regime side.

QUESTION: Do you really believe that Russia is deliberately targeting civilians there? So you don’t believe when they say that they are targeting al-Nusrah in eastern Aleppo?

MR TONER: Again, when we look at the evidence that we’ve seen on the ground, it can only lead to the conclusion that civilians were being deliberately targeted in some of these actions in an effort to intimidate – I don't know – I mean, you tell me what the motivation is behind it, but perhaps in an effort to drive out the civilians from Aleppo in order to eventually take the city. Again, that’s not what you’re seeing in and around Aleppo – or in and around Mosul, not at all.
But I can never say in an operation, a military operation, that civilians won’t get hurt, injured, or killed. But what I can say is that we make every effort, as part of the anti-Daesh coalition and as a leader in that, to avoid civilian causalities.

Here's how you know it's true.

The DoD releases info each day on the bombs dropped . . .

except when there are known civilian deaths.

Then they wait a few hours or, sometimes, never release any information at all that day.

DoD has yet to release anything this morning on the bombs dropped.

Mosul is only one problem for Iraq these days.

Big things happening in - internet totally off in southeast & HDP officials being detained.

+ Rumor of imminent invasion of .

Tensions between the Baghdad-based government in Iraq and the Turkish government continue to rise.

: PM Al-Abadi: we're not after war, but if wants that, we are ready for.

And backing up the prime minister of Iraq?  The Shi'ite militias.

- condemn attack on party. You attack our minorities in and in your home country? Cowardice.

The following community sites -- plus PBS NEWSHOUR and Jody Watley -- updated: