Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
kgirl
Published Letters: 222 Editor's Choice: 11
I've never fed my dogs anything but kibble and table scraps. I've also never had a dog with allergies or problems with their teeth, skin or gastrointestinal tract. My two Australian Shepherds go to the vet once a year for a check up and shots. I've never known anyone whose fed their dogs raw food and have only had a couple of instances in my life where people I've known have had problems with their dogs. Several were genetic, others were related to old age. So, based on my experience, kibble rocks! Obviously, I'm being facetious.
Until there is some solid, independent studies, who can say which diet is better. Most dogs seem to thrive just fine on kibble. But, if your dog has problems and raw food fixes those problems, great. I mean we all love our dogs and want the best for them, right?
Several years ago I was curious about feeding our dogs bones and read some articles by wolf biologists. In particular, I read that one of the reasons that wolves can eat bones so readily is they also eat hide and hair and that helps keep bone fragments (they also ingest dirt, small stones and other things) from injuring them. As one of them said, their poop can be quite hairy.
Good lord. You can love your pets and feed them commercial dog food. I've tried to find scientific, non-partisan, long term studies by researchers comparing raw food to commercial dog food and haven't found anything that has clearly said that raw foods are the best. If you want to believe that all commercial dog foods are "crap" that's your perogative, obviously. But, if I don't see any reputable research that says the same and my dogs are thriving, I'll stick to what I'm currently feeding them because it's obviously working great for my dogs.
When was the last time you saw your cat or dog longing for corn-on-the-cob?
Our dogs LOVE corn on the cob. They eat it right off the cob. It's kinda funny to watch.
As for commercial dog food being mostly corn and wheat, I don't know which brand you're talking about but ours doesn't.
Amusing interview with Benoit at Gawker regarding this article:
http://www.gawker.com/news/interviews/benoit-denizetlewis-braves-the-horror-of-abercrombie-fitch-150340.php
As for A&F, we grudgingly visit on occasion to get a gift cert for the neices, but it's hard to walk in and not want to bust out laughing. The blaring dance music, the massively large B&W homoerotic prints of shirtless young men, the ripped and torn crap jeans that sell for $75 a piece. The "Dude" is surely laughing all the way to the bank.
I was waiting for Dr. Phil to come out and do an intervention with Jimmy. Actually, what I found most interesting is that Big Jim didn't "throw down" with Oprah and call her on her own bullshit. I mean, this was the guy who famously said that he was a "savage" who liked "N.W.A" and "pitbulls". Oh, wait that whole badass persona was a lie to.
I could not understand why he made little attempt to defend his work, his art. He let Oprah shit all over him with barely a peep. I can't imagine any author that Frey aspires to (Hemingway, for example) putting up with that sort of indignation. I don't know if it was because he felt that if he sat and took it he wouldn't offend the sheeple who would continue to buy his book? Or, he was too afraid of the wrath of Oprah? If he had any integrity at all, I thought he would have stood up for himself and his writing.
I hear people say memoirs are full of hyperbole or embellishment. I agree. But, Frey dug a hole when in interview after interview he failed to present an articulate explanation of his own work. He could easily have said that he built this "badass" persona because he was so troubled and needed it to achieve recovery. Or he could have said that the book represents his emotional response to "his story" that it's not completely factual but represents the horror he felt inside and how bad he felt about himself. Instead he repeated the mantra that it was all true. Sure some names had been changed, but it was essentially true. In response to a question about whether the events in the book really happened, he said: "Yeah, it did. My girlfriend killed herself the way I wrote it". Nobody forced him to say that. We know now that was a lie. He made the bulk of his sales with the Oprah book club. And, his popularity was based on this "true story". The Oprah fan girls ate it up because they believed and Oprah believed in the story's authenticity.
Depending upon who you believe, Nan Talese has made it pretty clear that that book was never presented to her as fiction. So, I don't see how it can be said that his publishers forced him to sell the book as a memoir. And, if he had any concerns about that, why did he continue to promote the myth of its truthfulness.
As far as I'm concerned, none of these people deserve much sympathy. They all made a lot of money off of this book and given the collective short term memory of Americans, all will soon be forgotten and they will all be happily relaxing at their expensive summer homes (yes, James has one to) in a few months.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
