Well, the other day I posted some off the cuff comments about newspapers. Admittedly, like most everything I do, the thinking was sporadic and lazy. However, thanks to my friend [don't know if he wants his name here even though no one actually reads this blog], I can offer a reasoned and knowledgeable response to my own daft commentary. My friend has spent any number of years in the newspaper industry (Does that disqualify his comments? I don't think so.) and knows a whole hell of a lot more about how it works than I do. I am impressed he took as much time to reply as he did. I guess I touched a nerve. Maybe it's a case of Public Perception (me) versus News Industry Knowledge (him). Either way, his response is excellent. But longish. I am posting a link for you to look at the response. I think it's too long to post here in toto. [Actually, I got a taste of how my students must feel--I always tell them that when my comments are longer than their essay they should be worried!]
Newspaper Comment Response
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Forget Me Not Memorial Garden
The first of its kind, Memorial Pulping of America (MPA) has opened Forget Me Not Memorial Garden. They hope the test facility is one of many more to come. With concerns about global warming growing and the determination that cremation releases heavy metals into the atmosphere and standard burials involve toxic chemical use and vast amounts of inefficiently used land, the founders of MPA set out to rehabilitate the business of death and the ancient problem of what to do with our dead.
Moving beyond the "natural" burial concept, which forgoes the chemicals and sealed caskets, MPA has devised a method which allows the bodies of loved ones to essentially be pulped, processed, and bagged as fully compostable fertilizer in less time than a cremation or standard burial. The customer can then take a small bag of nutrient rich fertilizer home where plants of nearly any variety can be grown as an everlasting memorial to the dearly departed--with no adverse effects on the environment.
MPA admits that the greatest hurdle to success will be perceptual. Bix Ascof, lead founder of MPA, reports: "It's not as if we're throwing your loved one into a wood chipper or anything as crass as that. Yes, the body is pulped, but it is done in a very dignified way. It's the perfect way to show your commitment to a green future and honor your loved one in a single, simple, cost effective step."
SCI, the largest funeral home operator in the United States, has held up the opening of Forget Me Not Memorial Garden for over a year. It has tried a variety of attacks, everything from health and safety issues to a red herring attack using the stigma of Soylent Green. None of these tactics has been successful so they are now pinning their hopes on the aforementioned perception issues. They are confident that few people will be willing to subject the remains of loved ones to the process of pulping. Ascof points out that the process, however you view it, is no worse than that of cremation and you are left with a safe, useable product at the end of the process.
A separate facility is being built that will focus on pets that have passed on. This segment promises to be readily accepted. In an effort to display the results of their process, Ascof and MPA have partnered with the American Humane Society and has used pulped pet product fertilizer to feed and nurture a huge demonstration garden behind the Forget Me Not location. The second purpose of this garden is to show the wasted land use of a standard cemetery.
Ascof and company are confident that the pet service, due largely in part to the agreement with the American Humane Society, will be an almost certain success. The question remains on how quick the general populace will be to embrace this new technology for their own loved ones. "As global warming advances and resources become more and more scarce, the sense of this will be clear." In the end, simple economics may pave the way to Ascof's success. Land use and maintenance and the rising cost of materials used in coffins will make common burial an increasingly expensive endeavor. This is the future according to Bix Ascof, and he's counting on this future to help push what he sees as the only responsible way of caring for our dead.
Moving beyond the "natural" burial concept, which forgoes the chemicals and sealed caskets, MPA has devised a method which allows the bodies of loved ones to essentially be pulped, processed, and bagged as fully compostable fertilizer in less time than a cremation or standard burial. The customer can then take a small bag of nutrient rich fertilizer home where plants of nearly any variety can be grown as an everlasting memorial to the dearly departed--with no adverse effects on the environment.
MPA admits that the greatest hurdle to success will be perceptual. Bix Ascof, lead founder of MPA, reports: "It's not as if we're throwing your loved one into a wood chipper or anything as crass as that. Yes, the body is pulped, but it is done in a very dignified way. It's the perfect way to show your commitment to a green future and honor your loved one in a single, simple, cost effective step."
SCI, the largest funeral home operator in the United States, has held up the opening of Forget Me Not Memorial Garden for over a year. It has tried a variety of attacks, everything from health and safety issues to a red herring attack using the stigma of Soylent Green. None of these tactics has been successful so they are now pinning their hopes on the aforementioned perception issues. They are confident that few people will be willing to subject the remains of loved ones to the process of pulping. Ascof points out that the process, however you view it, is no worse than that of cremation and you are left with a safe, useable product at the end of the process.
A separate facility is being built that will focus on pets that have passed on. This segment promises to be readily accepted. In an effort to display the results of their process, Ascof and MPA have partnered with the American Humane Society and has used pulped pet product fertilizer to feed and nurture a huge demonstration garden behind the Forget Me Not location. The second purpose of this garden is to show the wasted land use of a standard cemetery.
Ascof and company are confident that the pet service, due largely in part to the agreement with the American Humane Society, will be an almost certain success. The question remains on how quick the general populace will be to embrace this new technology for their own loved ones. "As global warming advances and resources become more and more scarce, the sense of this will be clear." In the end, simple economics may pave the way to Ascof's success. Land use and maintenance and the rising cost of materials used in coffins will make common burial an increasingly expensive endeavor. This is the future according to Bix Ascof, and he's counting on this future to help push what he sees as the only responsible way of caring for our dead.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Black and White and Dripping Red All Over
A lot of newspapers are in trouble right now. Some of the biggest papers are filing bankruptcy. Others are cutting back and laying off. One of the Detroit papers is talking of publishing a paper only three days a week.
What happened?
I think of it as the USATodayification Factor. Papers are becoming more and more generic. With the exception of a few really good columnists (who are available to read online), most newspapers are a generic mish mash of AP wire articles, sports scores, television and movie listings, etc. You find the exact same things in almost every newspaper you pick up. There is the thin selection of local and state issues, blandly reported according to police reports and whatever the "reporter" of the day has been fed. The days of asking questions, hard questions, and actually reporting are long gone. Yes, Virginia, Edward R. Murrow is dead.
The idea of true investigative journalism is practically a joke. The newspapers are mostly owned by the people who are supposed to be investigated. Reporters are generally lazy and simply repeat what they are told. They don't bother to check sources or, god forbid, facts. Do newspapers even have fact checking departments anymore? Probably not. They are all trying to compete with the 24-Hour news cycle, which is madness. True reporting, investigation, and, dare I say it, writing are not meant to be done in two minutes for immediate mass consumption and gratification. We, ahem, have blogging for that kind of thing.
What newspapers are beginning to find out, albeit too late, is that empty calories aren't all that satisfying. We can get the exact same content beamed to our cell phones and laptops in concise, predigested bits and continue to move in our mindless, habit-filled, rabbit warren lives. We don't need to sit down for an hour or so and enjoy our paper while we eat our healthful breakfasts. And we don't. We cram "news" down our throats the way we cram Starbucks and pastries down our throats. If newspapers wanted to be successful they'd print the news on frappelatteccino cups.
Yes, huge national stories can be broken by newspapers. It happens a lot. But then every other publication just jumps on the bandwagon and repeats the same crap ad nauseum. Local and state newspapers need to revive true investigative journalism locally. Let the people read the hard hitting and truly researched and investigated dirt about local and regional stories. Some of those stories will get picked up nationally. Great. But in the meantime, people are going to start reading the local paper again because it will be filled with the stuff you can't get on Google. Yet.
What happened?
I think of it as the USATodayification Factor. Papers are becoming more and more generic. With the exception of a few really good columnists (who are available to read online), most newspapers are a generic mish mash of AP wire articles, sports scores, television and movie listings, etc. You find the exact same things in almost every newspaper you pick up. There is the thin selection of local and state issues, blandly reported according to police reports and whatever the "reporter" of the day has been fed. The days of asking questions, hard questions, and actually reporting are long gone. Yes, Virginia, Edward R. Murrow is dead.
The idea of true investigative journalism is practically a joke. The newspapers are mostly owned by the people who are supposed to be investigated. Reporters are generally lazy and simply repeat what they are told. They don't bother to check sources or, god forbid, facts. Do newspapers even have fact checking departments anymore? Probably not. They are all trying to compete with the 24-Hour news cycle, which is madness. True reporting, investigation, and, dare I say it, writing are not meant to be done in two minutes for immediate mass consumption and gratification. We, ahem, have blogging for that kind of thing.
What newspapers are beginning to find out, albeit too late, is that empty calories aren't all that satisfying. We can get the exact same content beamed to our cell phones and laptops in concise, predigested bits and continue to move in our mindless, habit-filled, rabbit warren lives. We don't need to sit down for an hour or so and enjoy our paper while we eat our healthful breakfasts. And we don't. We cram "news" down our throats the way we cram Starbucks and pastries down our throats. If newspapers wanted to be successful they'd print the news on frappelatteccino cups.
Yes, huge national stories can be broken by newspapers. It happens a lot. But then every other publication just jumps on the bandwagon and repeats the same crap ad nauseum. Local and state newspapers need to revive true investigative journalism locally. Let the people read the hard hitting and truly researched and investigated dirt about local and regional stories. Some of those stories will get picked up nationally. Great. But in the meantime, people are going to start reading the local paper again because it will be filled with the stuff you can't get on Google. Yet.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Harvest Restaurant, Tucson, AZ
I just got home from a very good but horribly overpriced dinner at Harvest Restaurant. The newest venture of a local restaurant group, it has a nice premise: Rely as much as possible on organic and locally produced foods and when it isn't possible, make sure it comes from a responsible source. I like the concept and that's why I wanted to eat there.
I was surprised to find a dearth of vegetarian offerings beyond a soup and a couple of salads. Apparently they've had a lot of comments regarding this and are going to add more vegetarian dishes. For now, they can make the fettucine without chicken sausage and chicken stock and they'll make up a vegetable dish for you. I opted for that option. I give them credit, they came out and asked what types of veggies I liked, etc.
What I received was good. It was very tasty. But, seriously, $19 for about 1/4 cup each of rice, kale, and mushrooms served on a smear of pear chutney? Seriously? That's ridiculous. There couldn't have been $3 worth of ingredients on that plate (and I'm being generous). What is that? It's over a 600% mark up. Ridiculous. Like I said, I liked the food but I won't be in any hurry to go back to pay $80 for $35 meal.
I was surprised to find a dearth of vegetarian offerings beyond a soup and a couple of salads. Apparently they've had a lot of comments regarding this and are going to add more vegetarian dishes. For now, they can make the fettucine without chicken sausage and chicken stock and they'll make up a vegetable dish for you. I opted for that option. I give them credit, they came out and asked what types of veggies I liked, etc.
What I received was good. It was very tasty. But, seriously, $19 for about 1/4 cup each of rice, kale, and mushrooms served on a smear of pear chutney? Seriously? That's ridiculous. There couldn't have been $3 worth of ingredients on that plate (and I'm being generous). What is that? It's over a 600% mark up. Ridiculous. Like I said, I liked the food but I won't be in any hurry to go back to pay $80 for $35 meal.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Criticism
I am not a great writer. I'm likely not even a consistently good writer. But I do write. As a writer, or would be writer, the one thing I have come to accept, though I'm sure no one ever gets to the point of liking it, is rejection. Rejection and criticism go hand in hand, part and parcel, as part of the writer's life. And, if the writer expects to continue writing, these also become part of his or her toolbox. Yes, criticism often hurts; sometimes it invokes, at least in the short term, a sense of anger. However, I for one have always been of the school of thought that if I don't know what's wrong with a piece of writing I can't fix it. Or perhaps make the next piece better than this one. Writers who reject criticism do so at their own risk. As I said, none of us like it, but we should strive to welcome it and grow from it.
I have long felt that the words, "This is wonderful. I wish I had written it," are some of the most useless words ever strung together. Sure, they feel good, but how do they help you grow as a writer? As a part-time writing instructor this is something with which I struggle. I know kids, especially today, expect nothing but praise. We have raised them on a steady diet of self-esteem boosting rhetoric. I think we're all paying for it, by the way, with a population of young adults who can't see themselves as anything but right, no matter what they do; nothing is ever their fault. Still, a steady diet of nothing but criticism isn't much good, either. Especially if it's not constructive criticism. "This sucks" doesn't help a writer improve anymore than "This is perfect." I have to force myself to remember this and to always address the strengths of an essay first. But the bulk of my comments have to do with how to improve the paper and the author's writing techniques. That's the whole point of education, isn't it? Improvement more than a feel-good-free-for-all.
I explain to my students that all of us have trouble finding the flaws in our own work. I know I do. I can find mistakes or flaws or stylistic errors in other people's writing all day long and easily gloss over even the most simplistic errors in my own. Part of this has to do with the writing process. We work on things and see them over and over and our brains know what is supposed to be there--so that's what they see. Our brains fix things on the fly. Missing words and common semantic issues go unnoticed. Most of us have seen the oft circulated e-mail where all of the letters (save the first and last) of the words are jumbled up yet we read the passage easily. This is the same principle. The brain is an amazing thing. This is why it is always a good idea to rely on outside readers to help proof our work. I have a nephew who is a writer and film maker. He often sends me his stories to proofread before he hands them in at school. He will be the first to tell you that I am a horrible nitpicker. He often comes back with, "Hey, that actually happened," or another explanation. But I'm about trying to bulletproof his stories. Just because something happened in real life doesn't mean it's going to fly in a story (and vice verse). If I question something, others will, too. Which brings me to an important aspect of criticism that every writer should be aware of.
If one person comments on something in your writing, listen and take it into consideration. If two people comment on something in your writing, listen closely and take it into consideration. If everyone comments on something in your writing, listen and act on it. However, in the end, you are the author and the piece is yours. You are the final judge, jury, and executioner (well, actually, most publishers are the executioners). The point is that we should not immediately reject criticism. If you are certain your piece of writing is perfect despite the criticism, you can be almost certain it is not. Always listen and seriously consider your critics' comments before you reject them out of hand.
I suppose you can take this too far. I haven't completed anything of length in fifteen years because I just think the things I have to do in a story that are mundane transitions seem too much like space fillers. I am not a poet. I have never considered myself a poet. But I write a fair amount of poetry. Some of it, I think, isn't half bad, either. I write poetry because I can usually finish a poem. My poems are generally short. I try to maintain, if not a strict adherence to a particular form, at least a stylistic consistency and metrical base. I often suspect my poems are too prosy, but I do pay attention to word choice and connotation. I believe these things are important, along with effective imagery. I work mostly on the literal situation and hope the figurative one happens. It's the figurative situation that determines whether a poem works or not. This is often why my criticism of other poems often seems too negative. I have a low patience threshold for poems that just use words to seem artsy. Or poets who think they need to phrase things in a seemingly lofty manner in order to seem "poetic." Word choice and connotation and the simple conveyance of meaning are the most important aspects of an effective poem. If you force a rhyme just to rhyme, it will only hurt the poem. If you sacrifice grammatical correctness for a rhyme or metrical adherence, you are sacrificing the whole beauty of the language and you will turn away a lot of readers. This last one is one of my biggest pet peeves and it is surprising how commonly it occurs.
On a last note, too many people in this world think that criticism negates the possibility of liking something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like a lot of things that aren't perfect. I like a lot of things that could be "fixed up" a bit. And I guarantee you I like a lot of things that I write or have written that are far from perfect and could really use a good critique. You can like something just fine and still be constructive about it. I like it, but I could like it a lot more if.... One of my favorite maxims is that no piece of writing is ever finished, it is only abandoned. That is, at some point, you have to publish it, let go and move on. It's a fact of life. I'd dare say you could find ways to improve almost everything that has ever been written if you wanted to take the time to do so. If you insist on making something perfect before you release it into the wild, you will never finish anything (trust me on this). So you should not be surprised by criticism; if anything, you should expect it. Plus, if someone takes the time to give you a critique it means one of two things: Either they are an instructor paid to do so and therefore have no choice, or they see enough promise in the piece to, in their view, help you improve it. Attempting to publish will help get you used to rejection. You'll never learn to like rejection, unless you're really sick that way. It doesn't even really get easier (though your reactions become less severe with time). But you do, on some level, come to accept it. In fact, you start hoping for personalized rejections because you start to realize that if someone takes the time to write you a personal note in addition to the form rejection you're at least on the right track. When you get a handwritten note on the rejection letter that says, "I really like this piece, it just isn't right for us at this time," it can be an ecstatic moment of hope.
So don't reject criticism. Don't hate the critic. Take criticism in hand and give it honest consideration. You don't have to blindly accept it--sometimes, often even, critics are just plain wrong. It would be a huge mistake, however, to blindly reject criticism without consideration. You will do yourself no favors by doing so and you will certainly not grow as a writer.
I have long felt that the words, "This is wonderful. I wish I had written it," are some of the most useless words ever strung together. Sure, they feel good, but how do they help you grow as a writer? As a part-time writing instructor this is something with which I struggle. I know kids, especially today, expect nothing but praise. We have raised them on a steady diet of self-esteem boosting rhetoric. I think we're all paying for it, by the way, with a population of young adults who can't see themselves as anything but right, no matter what they do; nothing is ever their fault. Still, a steady diet of nothing but criticism isn't much good, either. Especially if it's not constructive criticism. "This sucks" doesn't help a writer improve anymore than "This is perfect." I have to force myself to remember this and to always address the strengths of an essay first. But the bulk of my comments have to do with how to improve the paper and the author's writing techniques. That's the whole point of education, isn't it? Improvement more than a feel-good-free-for-all.
I explain to my students that all of us have trouble finding the flaws in our own work. I know I do. I can find mistakes or flaws or stylistic errors in other people's writing all day long and easily gloss over even the most simplistic errors in my own. Part of this has to do with the writing process. We work on things and see them over and over and our brains know what is supposed to be there--so that's what they see. Our brains fix things on the fly. Missing words and common semantic issues go unnoticed. Most of us have seen the oft circulated e-mail where all of the letters (save the first and last) of the words are jumbled up yet we read the passage easily. This is the same principle. The brain is an amazing thing. This is why it is always a good idea to rely on outside readers to help proof our work. I have a nephew who is a writer and film maker. He often sends me his stories to proofread before he hands them in at school. He will be the first to tell you that I am a horrible nitpicker. He often comes back with, "Hey, that actually happened," or another explanation. But I'm about trying to bulletproof his stories. Just because something happened in real life doesn't mean it's going to fly in a story (and vice verse). If I question something, others will, too. Which brings me to an important aspect of criticism that every writer should be aware of.
If one person comments on something in your writing, listen and take it into consideration. If two people comment on something in your writing, listen closely and take it into consideration. If everyone comments on something in your writing, listen and act on it. However, in the end, you are the author and the piece is yours. You are the final judge, jury, and executioner (well, actually, most publishers are the executioners). The point is that we should not immediately reject criticism. If you are certain your piece of writing is perfect despite the criticism, you can be almost certain it is not. Always listen and seriously consider your critics' comments before you reject them out of hand.
I suppose you can take this too far. I haven't completed anything of length in fifteen years because I just think the things I have to do in a story that are mundane transitions seem too much like space fillers. I am not a poet. I have never considered myself a poet. But I write a fair amount of poetry. Some of it, I think, isn't half bad, either. I write poetry because I can usually finish a poem. My poems are generally short. I try to maintain, if not a strict adherence to a particular form, at least a stylistic consistency and metrical base. I often suspect my poems are too prosy, but I do pay attention to word choice and connotation. I believe these things are important, along with effective imagery. I work mostly on the literal situation and hope the figurative one happens. It's the figurative situation that determines whether a poem works or not. This is often why my criticism of other poems often seems too negative. I have a low patience threshold for poems that just use words to seem artsy. Or poets who think they need to phrase things in a seemingly lofty manner in order to seem "poetic." Word choice and connotation and the simple conveyance of meaning are the most important aspects of an effective poem. If you force a rhyme just to rhyme, it will only hurt the poem. If you sacrifice grammatical correctness for a rhyme or metrical adherence, you are sacrificing the whole beauty of the language and you will turn away a lot of readers. This last one is one of my biggest pet peeves and it is surprising how commonly it occurs.
On a last note, too many people in this world think that criticism negates the possibility of liking something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like a lot of things that aren't perfect. I like a lot of things that could be "fixed up" a bit. And I guarantee you I like a lot of things that I write or have written that are far from perfect and could really use a good critique. You can like something just fine and still be constructive about it. I like it, but I could like it a lot more if.... One of my favorite maxims is that no piece of writing is ever finished, it is only abandoned. That is, at some point, you have to publish it, let go and move on. It's a fact of life. I'd dare say you could find ways to improve almost everything that has ever been written if you wanted to take the time to do so. If you insist on making something perfect before you release it into the wild, you will never finish anything (trust me on this). So you should not be surprised by criticism; if anything, you should expect it. Plus, if someone takes the time to give you a critique it means one of two things: Either they are an instructor paid to do so and therefore have no choice, or they see enough promise in the piece to, in their view, help you improve it. Attempting to publish will help get you used to rejection. You'll never learn to like rejection, unless you're really sick that way. It doesn't even really get easier (though your reactions become less severe with time). But you do, on some level, come to accept it. In fact, you start hoping for personalized rejections because you start to realize that if someone takes the time to write you a personal note in addition to the form rejection you're at least on the right track. When you get a handwritten note on the rejection letter that says, "I really like this piece, it just isn't right for us at this time," it can be an ecstatic moment of hope.
So don't reject criticism. Don't hate the critic. Take criticism in hand and give it honest consideration. You don't have to blindly accept it--sometimes, often even, critics are just plain wrong. It would be a huge mistake, however, to blindly reject criticism without consideration. You will do yourself no favors by doing so and you will certainly not grow as a writer.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Open Letter to the Obama Administration
When it comes to auto industry bailout, I thought it was laughable when the CEOs claimed they would work for $1 a year during these tough times. It's laughable because I would work for $1 a year if I was going to be slipped a multi-million dollar bonus at the end of the year.
One idea that I haven't heard is that any of these companies, auto or banking, who get money as a "bailout" or a "rescue" ought to be required to operate as a non-profit organization until every dime is paid back to the taxpayers. And the administrators should have a salary cap of no more than $250,000 dollars. Believe me, as the vast majority of America can tell you, it's quite possible to live very comfortably on much less than $250,000.
Back to the auto industry, any money they are given is going to be frittered away. That's a given. These people do not know how to manage their companies. They spend millions of dollars trying to convince us we need Hummers and over-sized turbo-diesel 10-cylinder pickup trucks. We don't. And most of us don't want them. We want what Honda is offering. Sure, free market has its place, but when a company is operating on federal dollars, it kind of negates the free market argument. Any "rescue" of the auto makers should come with strict guidelines. A minimum of 10% electric vehicle production NOW is feasible. They can lie about it not being practical all they want but companies such as Phoenix Motor Cars proves they are wrong. In addition to that 10% electric, there should a minimum 50% hybrid/alternative energy vehicle requirement and CAFE standards of no less than 40MPG. These are not "out there" crazy ideas. They are doable in the very short term as long as the incentive is there. These companies have proven over and over again that they are not going to do these things unless they are forced to do them.
One idea that I haven't heard is that any of these companies, auto or banking, who get money as a "bailout" or a "rescue" ought to be required to operate as a non-profit organization until every dime is paid back to the taxpayers. And the administrators should have a salary cap of no more than $250,000 dollars. Believe me, as the vast majority of America can tell you, it's quite possible to live very comfortably on much less than $250,000.
Back to the auto industry, any money they are given is going to be frittered away. That's a given. These people do not know how to manage their companies. They spend millions of dollars trying to convince us we need Hummers and over-sized turbo-diesel 10-cylinder pickup trucks. We don't. And most of us don't want them. We want what Honda is offering. Sure, free market has its place, but when a company is operating on federal dollars, it kind of negates the free market argument. Any "rescue" of the auto makers should come with strict guidelines. A minimum of 10% electric vehicle production NOW is feasible. They can lie about it not being practical all they want but companies such as Phoenix Motor Cars proves they are wrong. In addition to that 10% electric, there should a minimum 50% hybrid/alternative energy vehicle requirement and CAFE standards of no less than 40MPG. These are not "out there" crazy ideas. They are doable in the very short term as long as the incentive is there. These companies have proven over and over again that they are not going to do these things unless they are forced to do them.
The Future of the American Environment
I have read that Raul Grijalva is being considered to head the Department of the Interior. As an Arizonan, I wholeheartedly support this position. I would also love to see Robert Kennedy in charge of the EPA. Our environment and national lands have been sorely neglected and generally up to the highest bidder for too long. There are a lot of policies that need to be reversed or enacted to protect our great land. We have to remember that America is more than an idea, it's a place. And we need to preserve that place for generations to come.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Dog Food
I was just reading the label on my dogs' food. It's not cheap stuff and it's all natural with no corn, wheat, soy, or gluten. It's well balanced, no fillers, all natural, so on and so forth. It appears to be healthier than my diet, generally. I'm thinking about experimenting. I might, at least for a day, eat only my Blue Buffalo fish and sweet potato dog food. I can't tomorrow because I have an already scheduled dinner plan. Maybe Sunday. I'll let you know how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)