Trouble with the Truth

Just the facts, Ma'am!   

I just visited and read Politifact, as I do periodically, (another way "W" and I are different, I read and have no library, he's essentially functionally illiterate and we built him one) Politifact is a conservative newspaper based fact checker. They rate allegations as true, mostly true, half true,  mostly false, false and (Liar Liar) "Pants on Fire."  Interestingly enough, going back to before the last election, there are five "Pants on Fire" rankings, all of statements by Republicans. Remember, this is a conservative site. The outstanding fact is that 40% of these are by Michelle Bachmann!

This wackaloon just can't open her mouth, it seems, without sticking a pedal appendage in it. Of course, she tells these bald faced lies because of several factors, including the fact  that  a) She's a Tea Party Republican, b) She, like her peers attacks the President on any issue just because she can, and of course, c) The most significant reason, she has the intelligence of a  learning disabled ground sloth.

Here for your edification are her recent quotes and the (Conservative, remember) fact checker's decisions.

1: Bachmann said that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators."

          The 10-year goal may or may not be plausible, but if it’s not, there’s wide agreement that the three factors Bachmann mentioned are not the primary obstacles.  Instead, researchers pointed to stagnant funding and the fact that Alzheimer’s is a particularly tricky disease to research, given its slow and stealthy advances. If Bachmann was looking to score points about bureaucracy and taxation, she has made a particularly poor choice of case study. Bachmann has taken a popular theme and assigned it to a complicated health condition, simply to score political points. The experts say her claim is unfounded. We rate her claim Pants on Fire!

2: Bachmann said that of every "three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in salaries and pensions (go to) the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor."

           That is ridiculously off-base. Even the broadest calculation of administrative costs for SNAP tops out at 5 percent of program costs, far below the 70 percent Bachmann claims. And the scholar behind the statistic she appears to have used as support said Bachmann has misquoted his work. Pants on Fire!

The queen of bullshit even manages to make Sarah Palin seem informed, no mean feat!

          Another prodigious lie  by House Speaker Boehner is also rated "Pants on Fire." Boehner would almost be an admirable man if he had any flexibility whatsoever and could stop lying to Americans about policy. here is the lie and the response:

House Speaker John Boehner appeared on Meet the Press on March 3, 2013, and told host David Gregory he and his fellow Republicans have done all they can to break the stalemate over deficit reduction. It’s now up to President Barack Obama and the Democrats, Boehner said.
"We've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester," he said. "And over the last 10 months, House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester."

reply: It didn't take us long to find the White House plan. We found it on the White House home page by clicking the prominent button that says "SEE THE PLAN!" It leads to a page titled "A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit." The plan cites deficit reduction of the past two years, which has included a $600 billion tax hike on wealthy households and $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending cuts. Going forward, Obama proposes $200 billion in reduced defense spending, new efficiencies in health care that would save another $400 billion, eliminating some agriculture subsidies and reforming the postal service, among other proposals. On the revenue side, the plan calls for closing tax loopholes and limiting deductions to 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans. The White House says the new deficit reductions total $1.3 trillion on top of what’s already been enacted.

On Feb. 26, Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski introduced the American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013, which would cancel the $85.3 billion sequester and replace it over several years with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.

          With both of those "plans" easily found in official records and news reports, we asked Boehner’s spokesman Brendan Buck how the speaker could claim that none exists. "A plan must demonstrate it has the ability to pass a chamber of Congress to be worth anything. We’ve twice passed a plan. We’re still waiting for the Senate to pass something, anything," Buck told PolitiFact in an email.
          He’s right that sequester replacement plans have twice passed the House, most recently in December 2012 by the previous Congress. The House plan would replace the defense cuts under sequestration, and find savings in other programs, including food stamps, a public health fund that’s part of Obamacare and other savings totalling $1.4 trillion.

It includes no new revenue, which is the primary point of disagreement with Obama and Democrats. (bold and italics are mine)

But we (Politifact, the Conservative, remember, fact checker) find  his definition of the word "plan" to be ridiculously narrow. Congress often considers "plans" that don't pass either chamber. For example, Boehner was unable to muster the votes to pass his "Plan B" for the fiscal cliff, which Buck himself referred to as "a back-up plan to ensure taxes don't rise on American families."

Our ruling

Boehner said that the White House and Democrats in the Senate have no plan to replace the sequester.

He’s wrong on both counts. Obama has a proposal for replacing sequestration cuts with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. And Senate Democrats have filed a sequester-replacement bill taking a similar approach.

Pants on Fire!

Remember who, and what , he is

          I noted with disappointment, but little surprise, yesterday, that Senator John McCain and at least one other  have called for a Senate committee investigation of the Boston bombing. As with Bengazi, McCain, a failure as a Presidential candidate,  seems intent on  cementing his position as king of the backbiting second guessers. The man is proof that substance is far less important than image, as he has now milked the POW card for over  40 years. Regardless of any revelation of a missed tidbit of information or simple failure to connect dots in advance, McCain will be hard pressed to fault actions by City, State and Federal law enforcement organizations in capturing the perpetrators of that heinous act.

          The partisan Monday morning quarterbacking  which McCain has several times been involved in will bring no victim back.  It will, however serve as yet another in the seemingly endless litany of snotty inuendoes aimed, not at fact finding, but at smearing the President in any way imaginable. McCain apparently, in desperately seeking to smear others, has a short memory of his own public gaffes, malfeasances and displays of epic ignorance.  This is also a man who, in admitting he knew little about economics, claimed that 'no worries, Ms. Palin will help me.'  ("I might have to rely on a vice president that I select’ for expertise on economic issues.") and  "I understand the economy. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee that oversights every part of our economy." --ignoring the fact that it is actually the Senate Banking Committee which is responsible for credit, financial services, and housing -- the very areas then  in crisis!

          The best proof that McCain is a liar and a hypocrite is his continued existence, as in 2006 he said "I think I'd just commit suicide." --( on the prospects of the Democrats taking back the Senate in the November election, which they did). Even his fellow western Republican brethren aren't safe - "F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room." --to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation

          In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t."   

          Perhaps it is in attempts to smear others that McCain (known as "Mc Nasty" in high school) tries to make us forget that he also supported Charles Keating, the felon who ran Lincoln Savings and Loan into the ground, losing the savings of over 23,000 investors.  Five  senators were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of  Keating, , Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln. Even so, Lincoln S and L collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

          So, when McCain calls for investigations as political weapons, remember who he is.

Short memories and factual confusion

This is my response to a letter written to our local newspaper. Clearly,. the writer has issues with the current president, also clearly he has no sense of proportion and a very short memory. All the assertions I make in my reply are documented and factual. The one omission, because of a word count limit, was that I didn't refer to the insipid smirk on "W"'s moon face when he said "bring it on"  as I didn't remind readers of the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco during the carefully orchestrated and stage managed landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln within sight of San Diego, but made to look as if it was far at sea..

          In a recent letter, a gentleman urges us to "Hold this President's feet to the fire" for his statement, made less than a week ago, to the effect that "We will find out who did this, and why," referring to the heinous and cowardly Boston bombing. It is  another disappointing example of thoughtless partisan sniping, similar to the Tea Party Nation's e-mail  placing the blame for the bombing on the President. We are now almost to the point that my cat's fleas, tornados, and 7-10 splits are also the President's fault in the eyes of those who won't reveal their true "color".

          I wonder if these same individuals were so avid, outspoken and willing to hold the previous President's feet to the fire, after more than 3000 Americans died and, standing before Congress with typical Texas bravado, President Bush made much the same type of statement, followed by "bring it on!" Seven years,  two wars, over 4,000 American and over a million Iraqi deaths later, he left office . The current President ordered the final accounting for Osama bin Laden, 9 years after the empty threat.

           There are several  facts, curiously overlooked and incontrovertible, regarding these incidents. No one - Boston PD, MA State police, FBI, had any warning, inkling or sense of danger, on Patriot's Day. The Bush White House, on the other hand,  had a national security brief, prepared by the Clinton White House naming Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden as terrorist threats. The FBI upper hierarchy  ignored reports by field agents of Saudis learning to fly and having suspicious credentials. The report was largely ignored because it was prepared by the departing Democratic President. The FBI internal vibes were ignored because of a smug sense that "It can't happen here." At the time, any criticism of Bush's actions were lambasted as "unpatriotic." Whose feet really should be singed? "Always love your country; only love your government when they deserve it" - Mark Twain

                                                     Mike Dorman, Poinciana

Pharisees of the Far Right

                        Does Far Right hypocrisy Know no Bounds?

        It is almost mind numbing to consider the abyss that has opened between the evangelical rhetoric espoused by the extreme right in American politics and some statements made by those same self serving, self righteous , and one suspects, self loathing sycophants. As Jesus  called out the Pharisees for their loud public prayer, self aggrandizing  piety and hypocrisy, it is time for America to call out the hypocrites of the lunatic right for theirs.

          let's start with Pat Buchanan, the nattering nabob and largely irrelevant Faux News mouthpiece. Buchanan's new, or rather continuing, smear target and bête noir is gay equality. He has  recently stated that clergy should make a call from the pulpit for a wave of civil disobedience with regard to resisting treating LGBT persons equally based, of course, on religious convictions. " Buchanan juxtaposes LGBT rights with the racial civil rights movement, openly admitting that religious leaders will have to preach “principled rejection” and encourage their congregations to disobey laws. He believes “treating black folks decently” is the Christian thing to do, but the same cannot be said for the LGBT community."     

          So, you ask, where's the hypocrisy, we admit he's a hater, but he's right on race, isn't he? He's a fine Christian who believes in the brotherhood of man, It's just gays he hates now, right? The following are Buchanan quotes actually made during the years he was a Nixon speechwriter, toady and dirty trickster:

            As a Nixon White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history."  Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this."

          OK, so you say that was then, but now Buchanan is, as the Uber Christian he purports to be, a changed man?  All that racist stuff he now admits was wrong! So today's Buchanan only hates the LGBT community instead of everyone not like him? I demur, and offer the following as proof of this man's incredible well of drivel. I would also offer that someone who has all of Buchanan's vitriol and rancor could only dredge it up from a bottomless well of self loathing.

          "Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."                                           

         "With 80,000 dead of AIDS, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide,"

         Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) 

          Buchanan was also "credited" (as if the following deserved credit)  with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New Republic, 1/22/96)   

           In a  speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

As to any inference that Buchanan has changed his spots on race lately:  President Obama is both a “drug dealer” and a “boy” who is facilitating the end of White America.  We also can’t forget that the President is a closeted Muslim who is also leading the “death of Christian America.” (Fox News)  “Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare,” he said, speaking on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “He wants permanent dependency, in my judgment, of all these folks…somehow getting benefits, benefits, benefits and paying no taxes.”  The irony about this last comment is that as a percentage of GDP (the real accurate measure) welfare spending is in 2014 will be lower than the last Bush budget. From a high in 2010, in dire economic conditions, federal welfare has steadily decreased.

          In summary,  Buchanan  remains the racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-Semite he's always been. But enough about Buchanan, let's move on.

          The Tea (a)Party   has always had tunnel vision on a scale comparable to that of macular degeneration. Within  hours of the recent, deplorable  violence in Boston on Monday, and with little (and in a sense conflicting) evidence  the blame game of  "who is responsible" was inevitable, I suppose.  The mainstream right wing points to al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists, or indeed anyone ethnically, culturally or linguistically different from their white American heartland, and then blames Obama. Some on the far left (outside of the U.S., at least) don't necessarily implicate al-Qaeda, but points out the lack of attention given to similar atrocities wrought daily on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. foreign policy. And then blames Obama. The Tea Party ... well ... they just blame Obama.

          Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips claimed in an e-mail sent to members that the Boston marathon bombing occurred because “we have a government that is not committed to protecting America” since it isn’t willing to “destroy radical Islam.” Phillips said that “Radical Islam and perhaps even non-radical Islam” is a danger to western civilization, arguing that Muslims believe that “non-Islamic nations may be conquered or otherwise taken over.”

           Apparently Tea party nation wants us to simply kill all Muslim fundamentalists. How odd, considering that the Bush family , pater et filius, have deep roots and political ties to the world's leading educators of Islamic radicals, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia. So much so in fact, that Bush the elder actually invited  a Saudi prince to Texas to confer with "W" before his 2000 campaign. If the above is true, and it is, chapter and verse, the surely the real problem is the Bush clan, which went to war twice to protect Saudis and their oil based sheikdom, only to see the World Trade Center brought down by terrorist Saudi nationals. But, wait, where is the ire, the indignation, the blame on George W. Bush?  Clearly there was actual warning by the Bush FBI of malfeasant foreign nationals and their nefarious schemes. "W" wasn't blamed even though a Clinton threat assessment warned of Al Qaeda.

          President Obama was  blamed for Boston by what is admittedly a  fringe offshoot of the Tea Party. I'd have used the term "lunatic" fringe, but I reserve that term for the main body of the party.  Although no foreign terrorist group has claimed responsibility as is their norm, although there is zero evidence of any organized effort, even though the radical Islam course would have probably have been a suicide bombing, etc., etc.,  ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  Blaming Obama for everything -- the fact that cats have fleas, your poor golf score, jock itch, rain last Wednesday  -- has become such a right wing national (and maybe global) sport that it has become more than tiresome ,  apart from the fact that opposition to Obama's second term is more grounded in socio-cultural prejudice than it is in political deliberation.

          And finally to the last subject  of the rant, a  brief discussion of the hypocrite that is Antonin Scalia.  I had, mercifully, not had the Justice's name cross my mind for several days, and then an article in today's paper drew my attention. It seemed harmless enough . Entitled "High court wrestles with dispute over girl's adoption," the articled details an unfortunate case in South Carolina. A baby girl, born in S.C. to Native American parents was placed for adoption, her mother having died and her father having renounced any and all interest in her. Her adoptive parents, non Indian, were suing to retain custody after the father changed his mind.

          The case was granted certiorari under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.  The  law was passed because of a then common practice of removing Indian children from their natural homes citing child welfare issues  with placement, in the vast majority of cases, in non-Indian families. The law gives tribes and relatives a permanent say in decisions affecting the child. The Justices, are torn, rightly so, over the law vis a vis the best interests of the child. So far, so good, you say where does the Scalia factor come in?  Well, the gist of the last paragraph of the item is as follows: Scalia laments that the law clearly favors the biological father and, unfortunately does not direct the courts to take into account the best interests of the child, stating,  "I know a lot of kids that would be better off with different parents, said Scalia, who has nine children.  Scalia has written that "it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings."

          Still, what's the problem?  Well, judging by the things he has said in court or written in his legal opinions about gays and lesbians, he doesn't really mean it. The problem is that Scalia suddenly places child welfare over biological parent's legal rights, even though he has staunchly bashed Gay marriage and gay adoption. “there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.”  So, Mr. Justice,  let's make sure we understand, even though a committed gay couple wanted to give a decidedly better upbringing, home environment and life to a child whose crack head  mom tried to pimp him or her out (I wish that never happened, but the truth is heartrending) the child would be better off with mom than the gay couple? Really? just how morally bankrupt can one be and still sit on the high court?  

          Not content with to analogizing laws singling out people on the basis of sexual orientation to laws banning murder, (yes, he did!)  Scalia suggested in one dissent  that the relationships of same-sex partners were comparable to those of roommates. "[Colorado's ban] prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more," Scalia wrote. "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the 'life partner' of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee." Again, "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." That should sound familiar: It's the same argument defenders of bans on interracial marriage used to make, arguing that the bans were constitutional because they affected whites and blacks equally.

          Claims  that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than opposite-sex parents—either because such families lack both a male and female parent or because both parents are not the biological parents of their children—contradict essentially all  social science research on the subject.  Decades of social science research, especially  expert evidence introduced in the district courts,  all available  to Scalia in Amicus curiae briefs confirm that positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents simply has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.

          The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents. And yet, when struggling for a “concrete” harm that could come from gay marriage, Scalia went with “considerable disagreement among sociologists.” So we’ve gone from a weak claim — “considerable disagreement” over harm is not the same thing as actual harm — to an explicitly wrong claim, a claim which he clearly knows has zero substantiation. Like Buchanan, Scalia is a Catholic; unlike Buchanan, in fairness to Scalia,  he has none of Buchanan's other execrable biases except in this area, I even loved his appearances in Boston Legal and I respect his intelligence,  but he has been  so far off the rails here that the single sentence in the news item  almost made me spit my coffee.    

          There, I feel better now. Good night Gracie.

What you don't know makes you seem stupid!

There is a fine line sometimes, between ignorance and stupidity

 

The below dialogue was posted in response to the new Pope's rendition of the same old sorry- assed song regarding women's place in the hierarchy of the faithful. Responder #2 makes the hugely misguided statement that the current position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding women is Biblical!   

Responder #1 The papal position on US nuns notwithstanding, I'm tired of old white men, be they the pope and his minions or members of congress, trying to tell women how to conduct their private sexual and reproductive lives. If men were the ones who conceived and gave birth, abortion and birth control would be sacraments! 

Responder #2 The Bible hasn't changed, why should the Vatican? It's an old story and they're stickin' to it. I 'm stickin' to my story too. God loves us, no exceptions. For us to attempt less is blasphemy.

 

My response.

The Vatican position isn't any part of the Bible's position vis a vis women; that's exactly the problem.  Except for the apostle Paul ,who was misogynistic at best and probably closer to being gay and therefore not a supporter of women in any sense, there is no New Testament concept to support subordination of women, and when Paul writes about women he sounds almost "Koran-ish"  The "non-gospel" Gospels in the Nag Hammadi collection actually contain contemporary writings which put Mary Magdalene in position as "the one Jesus loved best" (and that's a direct quote from the gospel of Peter, which as a modern Christian you have officially been directed by the Council of Nicaea to disregard as scripture.) The current Catholic suppression of the capabilities of  women in the faith was created by men of the 5th century to consolidate their personal franchises as the bearers of the word. These are the same guys who decided that there were to be bishops and five of them were more "bishopy" than the others, not because of their spiritual character, but by virtue of their geographical bishopric. Then, inventing the idea that Peter was "The first Bishop of Rome" and therefore the bishop of Rome was even more "bishopy" than the other four, we create the office of Pope. Then we move to  the farcical notion that some of these bishops are super bishops (let's call them cardinals) and they get to make one of their own magical. It would be risible if it weren't for the fact that so many have died and so many more oppressed based on this invention. Don't you dare cite the Church's position as "scriptural;"  It validates Kathleen Madigan's  comment meant in jest that "we're Catholic, we don't read the Bible!" And "name" ; blasphemy is twisting the Bible to your own ends, which is exactly chapter and verse what the Church has done.    

Truth in Advertising?

Truth? in Advertising!

          I have long been fascinated with and by the lengths and breadths of deceptive language and distortion of truth used by advertisers. It is certainly nothing new. Some of my readers will remember doctors shilling for cigarette makers years ago. "Four out of five doctors prefer Camels!" Younger persons today have a hard time believing that this phrase was a headline in print ads and even on TV in the 1950s. Today we wonder if that was because the fifth doctor had already experienced his stroke, heart attack or lung cancer. John Wayne, who lost a lung to cancer, whored himself out as a tobacco spokesman, as did a somewhat lesser actor, Ronald Reagan, who never actually smoked except when doing commercials. In the thirties and forties, athletes touted various brands because "They don't hurt your  wind."  I believe this meant shortness of breath, because everyone knows cigarettes don't give you the wind; cabbage and beans do!

          We have grown more sophisticated in the way we transmit product propaganda to the masses, but we haven't come very far in the area of content. Examples of advertising's attempt to stir the need of the lowest common denominators in our society include persons whose food slaps their face, a cat who can't find his/her litter pan, a dog who wants to undermine the family baked bean business and numerous others.  The industry that really seems to know no bounds, however, is the pet food industry. The ad budget apparently is limitless, unlike their willingness to tell consumers where their product is made and what's in it.

          Let's just consider dog products. It is important to remember that, left alone, dogs will interbreed back to a common denominator scientists call the "pye (or pi)" dog. This is an abbreviation of the word pariah, and refers to the ubiquitous 35 to 50 pound mongrel with curled tail  and visible ribs showing which is common in developing nations. This creature eats literally anything animal or vegetable. I point this out as a refutation to the admen who assure us that Fido has a keen palate and is, in truth, a discerning and finicky gastronome. Let's consider the advertizing on just a representative few dog products. 

          "Beggin' Strips."  This doggy snack proudly advertises that their bacon and peanut butter flavors  are the epitome of canine haute cuisine. In truth, dogs in nature rarely ever kill pigs, and when they do, they even less frequently remove the side and belly meat and smoke it! I believe this is due to their  lack of opposable thumbs to start a fire. In point of fact there is bacon in Beggin' Strips. There is, however,  less bacon than hydrogenated starch hydroselate, glycerine, water, and the main ingredient, wheat flour. The peanut butter so broadly displayed on the label is even farther down the list after phosphoric and sorbic acids, and is listed as "artificial peanut butter flavor!

          A close second in the bacon derby is "Canine Carry Outs".  This bag proudly proclaims "Dogs love Bacon." Of course they do. They also love three day old road kill, and moldy cheese, in fact if it has a strong organic flavor a dog will eat it. Period. Again, bacon is a speck relative to the main ingredients, and the "bacony flavor"  really comes from the same chemical they put in liquid smoke. There is more "natural  smoke flavor" in this product by far than bacon. The product even has more glycerin than bacon! You can never have enough glycerin  in your diet, I guess. By the way, they also come in Pizza Flavor in case your dog is Italian. Hold the anchovies.

          "With every  tilt of the head and every tail wag, our pups know how to speak to us. [see my dog to human dictionary]. And with a hearty real meat taste and mouth watering aroma, only Pup-Peroni dog snacks let your best friend know that you're listening."  Really? Have these ad men ever even fed a dog? Try a hot dog, piece of cheese, or  real meat scrap. They'll not only listen, they'll hump your leg while they do the dishes!  Pup-Peroni can best be described as a failed attempt to  duplicate that "how drunk was I?"  delight, the Slim Jim, but for dogs.. Again, the "'natural smoke flavor" is the overpowering smell that makes one's nostrils bleed if you really sniff this delicacy. Come to think of it, that's what a  Slim Jim does too. Of course Pup-peroni comes in Roasted Chicken Flavor too, so you pet can sit around the fire with his mates reminiscing about the chase as the chicken turns on the spit.

          Yet another big seller is "Meaty Bone."  There is more ink in the type on this package extolling the virtues of the product than there is real meat inside! There is far more  fat (preserved with BHA),  meat and bone meal, animal plasma, and meat by products than beef.  In fact, there is more caramel colorant than beef! Of course the package trumpets, "It's all about bold meaty satisfaction!"    

                    So it all comes down to the real issue: The producers of these supposedly nutritious snacks aren't selling them to your dog; they're selling them to you. All these glowing adjectives and flights of fancy are aimed at convincing you that your dog actually has a discriminating palate. The bad news is he doesn't, but then again he doesn't buy his food either. While the manufacturers spend mega millions on cute commercials, some of them still buy cheap food components from China, which every so often contain just a touch of ethylene glycol (base component of anti-freeze and poison to dogs). But not to worry, it still has that beefy, bacony taste dogs love - until their kidneys fail.

          Now here's the free business plan from me to you. Make a dog product that is wholesome and smells like dog butt, or cat turds, or day old tuna or moldy cheese, or any of the disgusting things you've ever seen a dog eat. Call it whatever you like, but dogs will love it. Think about the two places your dog puts his tongue the most.....say no more. Goodnight Gracie.   

Been a while

Dear readers around the blogosphere, due to my back acting stupid (lower lumbar pain), it's been a while since I posted here. Fear not; the back is much better, and as soon as something or someone gives me reason to post, I shall do so.

                                                 Mike
                                                 (Crusty old Curmudgeon)