ohmidog!

In honor of Barney, former President George W. Bush’s Scottish terrier, who passed away last week — and Scotties everywhere – we present … the Scottie Pinwheel.

Closer, the trashy magazine that brought you Kate Middleton’s breasts, is making news again — this time with a story about a 44-year-old California woman who breastfeeds her pug.

The Oct. 20th U.K. edition of Closer features an interview with Terri Graham, a mother of two human children.

Breastfeeding her pug Spider, she says, makes her feel like a better mom.

“Having Spider suckle on my boob means I finally feel complete and a better mother,” said Graham, who was unable to breastfeed her children for reasons unexplained.

Graham said she has been breastfeeding Spider for two years — ever since the dog licked a bottle of breast milk she had pumped for her newborn son. Apparently, Spider liked it so much, she decided to let him start drinking directly from the source.

There’s definitely a boundary line between what’s acceptable and what’s not when it comes to how close we get to our dogs, and how humanly we treate them — and we meant humanly there, not humanely. I don’t assume to be the one who defines that line, but, in my humble view, this crosses it.

Even though we “ooh” and “aww” when we see a female dog take on the feeding responsibilities to newborn animals of other species, most of us will probably “euuwwww” at this example.

The significant difference between those cases and this, of course, is that a nine-year-old pug doesn’t require breast milk to grow, and the surrogate mama dogs in those cases don’t generally seek headlines.

This, in my view, is fairly outrageous, which accounts for the story’s popularity. We seem to have an appetite for the outrageous, and no shortage of media happy to serve it up and let us suckle. A photo of the article about Graham was posted to a Reddit forum devoted to strange news, and it quickly rose to the site’s front page.  It was subsequently regurgitated by The Huffington Post, and given good play by Doghatersunite.com, a website that says it serves “people who hate dog-loving idiots and their Darwin-defying fleabags.”

One has to wonder how the original publication got onto this story:  A phoned-in tip? Peering through a window? Logging into breastfeedingyourdog.com? (Just kidding, there’s no such website.) Or did the subject of the story, sensing the magazine’s zeal for boob coverage, volunteer the information?

All said, while the case of the breastfeeding pug raises some interesting questions, one should probably consider the source — not just tabloid readers, but  especially Spider — and perhaps seek their nourishment elsewhere.

Everybody doesn’t love a clone, especially when it’s for dinner, and especially when it has been sold to them without being labeled as such.

But that’s what’s ahead in the UK, where the Food Standards Agency has approved the sale of food from the offspring of cloned animals, including meat and milk.

The policy brings the UK more in line with the U.S., where we’ve also gone from wondering where’s the beef to what’s the beef.

The agency’s decision is in line with government policy in the UK, which supports clone farming and clone food without labels, even though research shows eight in ten shoppers oppose the cloning of farm livestock, the Daily Mail reported.

A little more than a decade into the 21st Century, the day has come when you can have a clone not just in your doghouse, but in your evening meal as well.

Both have come to pass — and operate virtually unregulated in the case of the former – despite polls showing the majority of the public is opposed to cloning, be it for purposes of creating pets or farm animals.

As related in “DOG, INC.: The Uncanny Inside Story of Cloning Man’s Best Friend,” pet cloning became a reality alongside the cloning of livestock — in fact, the first successful clonings of several species of farm animals came about in the pursuit to clone a dog.

After Snuppy, the first dog clone, was created in South Korea, dog cloning became a business, producing for customers copies of everything from Tibetan mastiffs to Labrador retrievers, from Pekingese to pit bulls, and loads of beagles destined for lives as laboratory dogs.

In the UK, defenders of the practice of cloning livestock argue that the offspring of clones are the same as farm animals produced through conventional breeding. They claim existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient to deal with any problems or concerns that arise. Both arguments have been made by pet cloning companies as well.

Accidentally oversized animals, while a concern to pet cloners, are not so much an issue on the agricultural side, where creating supersized animals is a goal, and would further boost profits.

The Daily Mail says supporters of the sale of food from clone offspring include Dairy UK, which represents the country’s biggest milk and cheese producers, the Food and Drink Federation, which speaks for manufacturers, and the British Meat Processors Association.

But, as in the U.S., some outlets — Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose among them — have responded to customer concerns by pledging not to use meat or milk from clone offspring in their products.

The FSA, which had argued that meat and milk from the offspring of clones would have to be studied to ensure it was safe, now concludes that there is “currently no evidence” that food from cloned farm animals and their descendants poses a safety risk.

At least 100 clone offspring cattle are being reared on farms in the UK.

As for concerns about ethics and cruelty to animals, the FSA said that’s not its department. Instead, that falls under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has ruled in favor of cloning.

Richard Lloyd, executive director of consumer group Which?, described the FSA decision as “a disappointment for the eight in ten people who don’t want to eat cloned food.”

“It’s vital that the FSA and the Government respect people’s desire to know what they’re eating and control the use of cloning technology in food.  As well as an approval process, we want to see a tracking system and clear labelling of these goods on the supermarket shelf.’

Emma Hockridge, head of policy at the Soil Association, which supports organic farming, animal welfare and consumer choice, also has a beef with cloning: “Not only are there insufficient long-term studies into the impacts on human health, cloning is cruel and damaging to animal welfare at all stages of the process,” she said.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has declared meat and milk from cloned animals safe to eat, admitted that it is probably already in our food supply and has taken no steps to require it to be labeled as such.

In other words, it’s entirely possible that– no matter what your stand is on the issue — you’ve dined on clone.

I’m not sure who knows best, the governments or the people. But sometimes I wonder if our beefed-up brave new world should be a little more chicken.

Stupid pet tricks and stupid human tricks from the “Late Show” with David Letterman are battling it out online in an NCAA-style tournament.

The show selected 16 finalists for the tournament — chosen from nearly 300 pet and human tricks performed over 17 years of the “Late Show.” They put the stupid human tricks on one side of the brackets, the stupid dog tricks on the other.

Online voting determines who progresses to the next round. One vote per day is permitted.

Bailey, above, who we’ve shown you before, is still in the running on the pet side of the brackets. So far Bailey, aka Dog Playing Dead, has beaten out Dog Jumping Rope, and Dog That Says “I love you.”

Meanwhile, on the human side of the brackets, “Woman Spits Gum, Sucks It Back” has advanced through the early rounds and was headed to take on either the “Lady Who Scratches Eyeballs” or “Man Who Squirts Milk Out of Eye.” Here’s a look at the latter:

The championship round will pit the winner on the stupid pet trick side against the winner of the stupid human side, with online voting determining the winner. I’m picking Bailey to go all the way — since voters are choosing their favorite, as opposed to the stupidest. Were they voting for the stupidest, humans would win, hands down.

Here’s CNN’s report on the Westie who had the coat stolen off his back while briefly tied outside a New York City supermarket.

Lexie was relieved of his $25 green wool coat last week, while his owner was buying milk. Fortunately, it was his everyday coat, and not the Burberry.

What exactly the cow with a tire stuck on his head — seen near the end of the report — has to do with any of this is beyond me, but then what would you expect from a reporter named Jeanie Moos?

A Westie left tied by his owner outside a New York supermarket was relieved of his winter wear — that’s right, somebody stole the coat off his back.

Donna McPherson, 42, says she tied up Lexie, her 10-year-old Westie, in front of Ace Supermarket in Park Slope “for two minutes” so she could buy milk.

When she returned, the $25 green wool coat with leather trim he’d been wearing was gone.

Here’s how McPherson relayed the facts to F—ed in Park Slope, a blog that isn’t nearly as dirty as its name:

I ran out of milk Sat night at 6.30pm so bundled Lexie up in his little green coat and walked down to Union & 7th to get some milk from Ace Supermarket. I tied Lexie to the door (where I could see him through the glass) and grabbed the milk. As anyone who’s been in Ace knows, the milk is located right inside the door, so I only had my back turned on Lexie for 10 seconds or so ( I know, I know: people will shout at me for leaving him alone outside and I  never normally do, but I needed some milk!). I was back outside within less than a minute, and when I came out someone had STOLEN THE GREEN COAT off of Lexie’s back!?.

WHAT. THE. F—??? I mean, who does that? 

I thank god the dog coat thief didn’t steal Lexie, but I never expected my friggin dog to get mugged!  Lexie is OK post traumatic incident, but I swear to God: if I see someone with a dog in Lexie‘s green coat you better run in the opposite direction!!”

McPherson, an investment banker, told the New York Post she attempted to make it up to Lexie by buying him two new coats.

(Photo: Gregory P. Mango/New York Post)

PETA’s suggestion to Ben and Jerry, proposing human breast milk be used in place of cow’s milk in the making of its ice cream products, has been rejected.

PETA made the request after hearing that Storchen, a  restaurant in Switzerland, has just announced that they will be unveiling a new menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent human breast milk.

That, a PETA blog explains, “got us thinking … which product would be fabulously awesome if it were made with breast milk instead of cow’s milk? (Light bulb!) Ben and Jerry’s!”

Humans, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals notes, are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species.

“We explained that using cow’s milk for their ice cream is a hazard to consumers’ health,” the PETA Files blog continues. “…Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Because, like all mammals, cows only give milk during or after pregnancy, in order for humans to constantly milk them, they are forcefully impregnated every nine months. Many live in filthy conditions and are forced to give 10 times more milk than they would naturally. It’s truly an awful life.”

Since Ben and Jerry no longer own Ben and Jerry’s — they sold out to Unilever eight years ago  – they didn’t get much say on the proposal. A spokesman for Unilever said that while the company valued PETA’s input, it has opted against the idea, Advertising Age reported.

“We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue,” the spokesman said, “but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”