We’re already in the midst of the second week in February, which means it is once again time for the annual Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York City.   That interests me mainly because I’m a “dog person” and although I don’t follow these sorts of things closely enough to care about any of the favorites or most of the technicalities involved, I do enjoy tuning in sometimes on TV when there’s nothing else worth watching (which is often the case) just to cheer on my favorite breeds and breed groups.  Although I enjoy seeing the dogs in those breeds, I find the whole world of dog shows more than a little odd, which is why it was more than ripe for parody in the 2000 Christopher Guest comedy Best in Show.  Plus, as a dog owner, I have more than a few problems with any sort of beauty contest for dogs which my beautiful and charming mutt would be unable to enter.

Regardless of which dog is named “Best in Show” in New York this week, I saw this story a few weeks ago about the ten most popular dog breeds in the U.S.   Although, this is just one list and an imperfect one at that (some of the flaws in the method employed are explained here), personally I found it somewhat encouraging that even at the start of Obama’s second term, the Labrador Retriever is still the most popular dog breed in America, followed by the German Shepherd and the Golden Retriever.  I like the fact that three large breeds are the most popular.   These are not dogs for wimps.  Although Goldens and Labradors are both known for their sociability and for being great family dogs, they are also good hunting dogs, and great companions for athletic people who spend a lot of time outdoors; German Shepherds are also great active dogs, known for their loyalty and intelligence, and they are great guard dogs.  In fact, the top four dogs are the same as they were in 2002.

What’s more intriguing is the shifting positions of other breeds and dogs further down the list in the last 10 years.   Among the top 10 dogs, I’m puzzled by the rise in popularity of the Bulldog (#18 in 2002, #10 in 2007 and #5 in 2012), but I suspect it is connected to the rise in popularity of the Rottweiler (#13 in 2002 and #9 in 2012), the Doberman (#23 in 2002 and #12 in 2012), and the French Bulldog (#58 in 2002 and #14 in 2012).   My initial impression of this trend is that in the Obama economy, people worry more about the security of their homes and their possessions, and so increasingly they are opting for dogs that can be fiercely protective over those that are just cute or aesthetically pleasing.  I think the trend points to increasing feelings of unease in our society, but I’m more curious to know our readers’ thoughts on the implications of the enduring or changing popularity of different breeds for contemporary American culture.  Should we be encouraged by the latest list, or is it a sign of more trouble ahead?

In his post yesterday about the Los Angeles shooter, Jeff pointed out the noteworthy lamestream media silence on certain key elements of the shooter’s manifesto.  Indeed, as Noah Rothman notes today at Mediaite: When crazed shooters can’t be linked to the Tea Party, the media displays admirable restraint.  The story of the shooter in Los Angeles, in fact, is–like several other recent shooters–only of interest to the press corps to the extent that it helps feed the narrative about “gun violence” and the need for more gun-control.  Elements of the story that don’t fit with the narrative are omitted, and especially those elements that contradict the narrative or help to fuel competing narratives.  Because the Los Angeles shooter’s manifesto complains about perceived “racism,” this could theoretically turn into a story about how the racial grievance industry has created a monster, but of course it never will because that is not an agenda the media has any interest in promoting.

Most of the times these days it seems that the press corps is pushing several different agenda items at one time, and news stories are only of interest or worth covering to the extent that they help advance one of those agenda items.  Rather than report the facts and let things fall where they may, the press tries to shoehorn as many stories as possible into the service of one agenda item or another.   The other day, for instance, I woke up to this story on NPR explaining that:  “The gun violence that scars some Chicago neighborhoods has been a plague for one woman. Shirley Chambers first lost a child to gunfire in the mid 1990s. In 2000, a daughter and a son were shot to death just months apart. On Monday, Chambers buried her last child.”  The story could have focused on the horrible failure of gun-control in Chicago, it could have talked about the problems with gangs in the city or crime related to drugs, it could have talked about the plight of inner-city blacks caught up in a dysfunctional culture, but it didn’t do anything like that.  No, the story had to be forced to fit the current narrative about the evils of “gun violence.”

But it’s not just “gun violence.”  As I write, a huge winter storm is bearing down on the Northeast.  When I spent a few years in New England in the 1980s, this sort of thing was to be expected and was known simply as “winter.”  These days, every storm of any magnitude is a big story, people are encouraged to panic and to scurry about, and inevitably, the articles begin to appear linking the storm to “climate change.”

Other common themes of note these days include the repeated focus on “bullying” as a way of pushing “anti-bullying programs” and “anti-bullying” legislation.  Hence, this horrible story is of interest to the media because it is seen as a way of advancing the “anti-bullying” agenda.  In years past, it may have been reported simply as a brutal fight in a school yard, but not any more.   I’m curious to know more about the attacker, but the story doesn’t tell us, nor does the journalist who wrote the story have any interest in reporting what the actual issues in this case are, because doing so would only undermine the “anti-bullying” agenda.  Even NFL cheerleaders are of interest largely to the extent that they can help advance the cause.

And of course, gay issues are another big agenda item for the press corps, but only insofar as gays and lesbians can be portrayed as either victims (of hate or discrimination or abuse) or as inspiring and selfless humanitarians.  Hence, this story about a supposedly “gay” dog in Tennessee was picked up by the national press because it helped advance the narrative that people in “red states” are stupid bigots who hate gays;  in truth, it is really a story about how there are people in all states who shouldn’t own dogs either because they are irresponsible and self-centered or because they have no knowledge or understanding of normal canine behavior.  Had the dog been euthanized after having been abandoned by a gangster or a meth addict in the inner city, you can be certain it wouldn’t have made the news.

Via Drew @ Ace, via The Other McCain‘s headlines.

UPDATE: The “dog meme, quips Michael Walsh “has legs. Derision is wolf bane to the Left.” Via Instapundit.

RELATED: Axelrod: Why are we wasting time talking about which dogs Obama ate as a kid? Hey, maybe, David, if you just said we made a mistake in attacking Mitt Romney for something he did in the early 1980s, we might agree to drop the subject. K?

As chief Obama strategist David Axelrod tries to brush aside speculation that he would make an issue of the GSA, Solyndra, and Secret Service scandals had they taken place when a Republican was in the White House, Ed Morrissey asks, “Isn’t this the same guy who attacked Romney for the way he traveled with his dog in 1983?”

Recall that Axelrod tweeted “a photo of Obama with his Portuguese water dog Bo in the back seat of the presidential limousine“, writing, “How loving owners transport their dogs”.  Had the Obama campaign not made an issue of this, had the president’s supporters not made jokes about this 30-year-old story on Facebook or mocked the Republican on bumper stickers, we wouldn’t be having so much fun with the president’s eating habits.

“The Obama Eats Dogs theme is silly,” writes Powerline’s John Hinderaker,

. . .  but as many others have said, it is silliness with a purpose. The Obama campaign seriously intended to make an issue of the fact that decades ago, Mitt Romney put the family dog on the roof of his car, in some sort of kennel or container, because there was no room inside. The dog was fine, but the Democrats crowed that focus group testing showed that the incident would make voters dislike Romney. I think that claim was sheer fantasy, but in any event, the Democrats won’t be able to talk about Seamus now that everyone knows that Obama used to eat dogs.

“Would this Obama dog story still be ricocheting around” asks Brit Hume, “if the left had let go of Romney 28-year-old dog-on-car episode? Paybacks a bitch?”  (Via Instapundit.)  Well, actually, karma’s a female dog.  And she’s come around to bite him.  And given his appetite, he so wants to bite back.

And Mr. President, just as long as your supporters mock Mitt Romney for once transporting his dog on the roof of his car, so long shall we mock you for writing about your Indonesian eating habits.

RElATED: Jim Treacher proposes a campaign slogan:  Obama 2012: Please Don’t Make Him Go Back to Eating Fido.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K quips that, “Only an idiot would vote against Romney based on that dog crate story. The fact that Democrats are flogging it shows how little they respect the intellect of their voters.”

UPDATE:  ”Funny“, quips Jim Treacher, “how an issue the Democrats brought up over and over for years suddenly stops being important when it starts making them look bad.”  (Via Instapundit.)

Walking to Matthew Berry’s debate tonight, I passed a car sporting these bumper stickers in deepest blue Arlington.

Something tells me that one would have earned a large grin from my co-blogger.

Something escaped me when I read Bruce’s post on the Australia restaurant “refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was “’gay’”.  It hadn’t registered when I first read the post that a government panel is requiring that the bozos at the restaurant pay a fine for their strange behavior:

The Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruled that the Thai Spice restaurant in Adelaide must pay Ian Jolly [blind man] almost $1,400 for barring him from eating because of confusion about the sexuality of his guide dog, Nudge. . . .

The tribunal ruled that on top of the fine, workers at the restaurant — which reportedly displays a “guide dogs welcome” sign — must send Jolly a written apology and attend an Equal Opportunity education course.

Now, of course, Bruce had all this stuff in his post, but I focused more on his clever concluding comment than on the statist aspect of this action.

And as I read it again and check it against other coverage of the event, this state-sanctioned punishment strikes me as silly as the exclusion.  I would never patronize a restaurant which refused to serve a blind man because he had a gay guide dog.  I believe that people should “punish” the restaurant by similarly refusing to eat there.  But, that punishment is not the province of the state.

But, now we’ve got a state tribunal requiring the restaurant and its employees to (1) pay a fine; (2) issue an apology and (3) attend an education course.  Seems like someone is carrying things just a little too far.  But, then, state officials don’t want to be seen as anything less than perfectly PC.

One of our readers (and a fine blogger in his own right) won’t be able to attend the Tea Party today, but methinks it’s because his pup wants to crash the party:

If you’re in LA and your pup doesn’t want a handout of his own, join me and at least 4 other GayPatriot readers at the Rally today outside Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office, 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 915 in Los Angeles, CA 90025-3343, at 5:30pm.

From Instapundit:

SAVE THE PLANET: Eat A Dog? “The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog.”

Hilarious. 

Kids and dogs are often smarter than adults.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m spending a week in Key West on vacation. The first person who can find me in person, you get $50.00.

To see what I look like, checkout my Twitter posts today. GayPatriot at Twitter.

$100 bucks to the first person who finds me and tells me that our old dog’s name was ROMPER.

Have fun!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

you peeple may have herd that a beagle named “uno” won the westminster dog show this week      i thought you should know that there was an agreement among the labs that we would allow uno to win    he is a cool guy   but he does bark a lot

-saxby (patriotpooch)

There’s not much to add to this sentiment from Mark Levin’s new book, Rescuing Sprite. (h/t – The Corner)

I think there is something special about dogs. There’s a special connection or bond between humans and dogs. It’s as if dogs exist to bring people happiness. They teach us about life, loyalty, joy, trust, responsibility, and laughter. They help us clear out all the clutter that surrounds our busy lives and focus on what’s really important. They tell us it’s okay to take time to play sock-pull or have a catch, make silly noises, and enjoy yourself despite all the pressures we adult humans have deal with. Let me put it this way: Dogs are not pets. Dogs are family.

And while we are on the topic of recommending dog-related books….

…this one is a must-read and a serious tearjerker.  You will fall in love with Marley, I assure you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)