BuzzFeed: Eating Dog Is Really No Worse Than Eating Chicken
Politi"Fact:" Did Obama Eat Dog? The Evidence Is Too Inconclusive For Us To Say "True" or "False"

First of all, after lunch, enjoy this older Daily Mail article on dog slaughtering. Colorful local custom.

BuzzFeed, Ben Smiths Gonzo Liberal Spin Shop, links that, but then makes this dubious argument. See, okay, Obama ate a dog. But is that such a big deal?

No. Because both eat chicken, and that's worse or something, so it's a draw. Isn't it?

Isn't it?

These images (and the vastly more horrifying ones that emerged from a recent investigation into the dog-meat trade in China) are certainly jarring, but the fact of the matter is that the squeamishness and outrage that this subject seems to generate is somewhat misplaced. When I raised this issue with Matt Prescott, who is the Food Policy Director at the Humane Society of the United States, he brushed it off:

Abusing dogs for their meat is certainly horrible. Though it’s important to note that the way chickens and pigs are abused on U.S. factory farms is also horrific, with animals crammed into tiny cages and crates, suffering immensely for much of their lives.

If that's the case, we should probably drop this whole obscure Indonesian dog meat issue and ask both the candidates about these pictures. I won't hold my breath.

Yes, we should drop this "obscure Indonesian dog meat issue" (in what way is it "obscure"? Dude ate a f***ing dog. What's wrong with your brain that you're having difficulty with this very simple fact set?) and focus on what really matters: Chicken.

And the chicken issue just happens to cut both ways but that's a coincidence.

Swearsies!

Meanwhile, PolitiFact, whose whole raison d'etre to declare things as "True," "Mostly True," "Misleading," or "Pants on Fire," claims in its headline that there is some question regarding the matter:

In context: Did Obama eat dog in Indonesia?

What the hell does "in context," in this context, mean? Dude either ate dog or he did not eat dog. There is not some context by which you'd say, "Well, he ate a dog, but in context, he didn't."

They quote from the book, attempting to add context, but placing the quote about eating dog where of course it should go -- at the end of the extended excerpt, buried under paragraphs of irrelevant material which all but beg of you, "Stop reading this and click over to the Huffington Post to find out if Kim Kardashian does butt stuff."

The paragraph that answers the question posed, dispositively, is placed at the bottom?

And then they refuse to answer whether it is "True," "False," or "Misleading" that Obama ate a dog. They just don't say either way. I don't really follow PolitiFact, but I have never seen a "Fact Check" in which they refused to render some verdict on the facts.

They refuse to do so here -- and to my admittedly limited knowledge, this is the very first time they've so refused.

And it's an easy question to answer. In his own voice, reading from the book that Bill Ayers wrote for him, Obama says he was "introduced" to dog, and found it "tough."

But PolitiFact leaves this as an unanswered question -- the headline question unanswered by the writer or the site -- as if this is a proposition over which reasonable minds might draw differing conclusions.

Is Obama lying when he says he ate a dog? I guess PolitiFact thinks maybe he is.

Meanwhile, while these pictures are horrifying, I do urge you to email around what cooked dog actually looks like.

It's not like you don't know you're eating dog. The heads are cooked intact, eyes and all.

It's not just like some meat in a stew.

More: When delving into the important question of whether Mike Huckabee ate squirrel, PolitiFact had no trouble in answering the charge as "True."

Suddenly they're confused about the meaning of the word "eat."

No Problem... Declaring the Seamus on the Roof story "Mostly True."

ht @will_antonin and @justkarl

posted by Ace at 12:42 PM

| Access Comments