Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Like Dog Food

First the important stuff. Everything has been very traumatic these past few days. A company called Menu Foods recalled Coco's dog food. These four cans were tried and found guilty.

Coco`s Dog Food

The whole thing was very dramatic. There was the printing out the recall list and the methodical scrutiny of each can from the pantry. The can that was open was among the guilty cans. I hope Coco doesn't get sick. Her typical meal involves a mix of kibbles, canned food and table scraps. Hopefully the mix diluted any contaminents sufficiently. This next picture shows what Coco will be eating for the foreseeable future:

Homemade Dog Food

The lucky dog!!!!! Cans of homemade dog food are so much better.

The AVMA disagrees, they think making petfood is too complex for the public


It is interesting that they recalled the chunky products. The problem was something in the wheat gluten thickening agent used in the gravy. When I shopped for the dog food, I would always get the pureed stuff as the sauce on chunky stuff looks too artificial for my tastes.

I wish food companies concentrated on the quality of the ingredients and spent less time adding thickening agents and colors which simply deceived people about what the product really contains.


Speaking of finding things guilty, I happened to catch part of a Bill O'Reilly shout down of Rocky Anderson. Rocky Anderson is on a personal crusade to impeach President Bush. I didn't see which of the two clowns started the shouting. The part of the circus that I saw had Anderson smiling smuggly and looking reasonable while O'Reilly shouted and came off as unreasonable.

Quite frankly, I see Mayor Anderson impeachment tour as the unreasonable action. Apparently, Rocky Anderson's view of the "Living Constitution", Bush's "high crime and misdameanor" is that he does things that are against the Democratic spirit of the nation. Of course, all Republicans are guilty of not being Democratic. I don't like what either of the set of kooks do.

I wish that O'Reilly had come off better in this dual of clowns. I suspect that O'Reilly would have won the nondebate if he didn't play the that yelling over game that seems to be in vogue in the Jerry Springer world of news-entertainment. Of course, I did not see what started the yelling. Rocky Anderson is very good at tweaking people. I may have clicked on the station just after the tweak. After all, when Rocky Anderson gets his righteous indignation thing going, it is an ugly ugly sight.

Perhaps O'Reilly was trying to pull and instant karma thing. Rocky Anderson is on a crusade to try and convict his hated enemy George Bush; So O'Reilly wants to try and convict Anderson. The instand karma thing makes sense. However, it seemed to come of poorly. The public court is a thing of the French Revolution and of the Stasi. I wish we could rise about the game of trying our enemies in public.

I said previously, we may be in a culture war, but we are not going to win it when our self appointed "culture warriors" adopt the methods of the left. It is fun to try and convict people in public kangaroo courts. The shrill nondebate that follows always gets too negative for my tastes. I really don't like this ultra partisan thing going on between the far left and right, where we all start treating each other like dog food.

4 comments:

Reach Upward said...

I can't stand to listen to O'Reilly for more than three minutes a week. I think of myself as conservative, but this guy turns me off big time.

y-intercept said...

"I think of myself as conservative, but this guy turns me off big time."

The problem with identifying with a label is that there is always some group trying to gain power by redefining that label.

Right now, everyone is tugging at the definition of the word "conservative." Last century, the same battle occurred over the meaning of the word "liberal." It is common that we support things, only to find out that the wanks have redefined the terms just before their ascendance to power.

It is common that, in the battles over the definitions, the loudest (and arguably the worst people) manage to get to the top.

Prior to Bush and the Republican majority, Conservative meant smaller less intrusive government with things pushed to the state level when possible. Neocons shifted the definition to larger intrusive government.

The biggest problem I see at the moment is that Republicans have not been in power long enough for the Democrats to see that the real problem is with the size of the government. We now have two big parties favoring big intrusive government. They only differ a little on how on opinions about who should be in charge and issues about how the big intrusive government should be configured.

Perhaps the reason for this new fad of publicly trying and finding political leaders guilty is that it diverts the subject from “what” to “who.” Big government liberals are trying to convince themselves that the problems with the big government under Bush is the result of the leader and not the result of big government itself.

We have to try Bush and find him guilty; otherwise, we have to face the fact that Bush really isn't the cause of the corruption, but the big government itself.

Democracy Lover said...

The case for impeachment does not rest on partisan issues, it rests on the United States Constitution. Read up on it - we have an executive who thinks he is king.

y-intercept said...

Wow! What an insightful comment! My rejection of Rocky Anderson's version of the "Living Constitution" is based on the fact that I never read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or any of the founding documents. I would have never guessed.

Further, we should impeach President Bush because you have a unique ability to see into a another person's mind and see their intentions. When you use this supernatural gift you see that Bush thinks of himself as king.

Speaking of supernatural gifts: I have a cup of water sitting next to my computer. I would be obliged if you turned the water into a merlot.

Personally, I think we have a big problem in that the Contitution gave too much power to the executive. Even worse, we have a weak Crogress that keeps relinguishing more and more power to the executive.

I don't hold to the argument that Bush thinks that he is king. I would accept an argument that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and picked up a rather elitist neocon interpretation of the Constitution.

The fact that we would end up with a big debate about the neocon v. progressive interpretation of the Constitution tells me that any attempt at impeachment is really just a partisan action.

I wish we would throw the bums out. Unfortunately, there is a long list of bums ready to take their place.