"Eyes For Lies" Renee Ellory

Pet Food Scare

April 4, 2007/in Uncategorized/by Eyes for Lies

Ever since the pet food scare that caused hundreds of dogs and cats to get sick, and some to die from the toxins, I’ve seen articles talking about people starting to cook for their pets.

I commend these people for taking care of their best friends, for being concerned, for questioning things, for seeking out alternatives, and wanting something better.

I am a little more than annoyed when I read supposed “experts” telling us that it is okay to cook for our pets short-term — but long term it is unhealthy, potentially leaving a dog with an unbalanced diet, or worse. The pet food industry is big business.

I read an article on the topic this morning on CNN. In this article, they even say that garlic and salt can be dangerous. I find that very questionable since my dogs have eaten a fair amount of raw and cooked garlic for over a decade, and a reasonable amount of salt for iodine for years. And garlic is even recommended by some veterinarians (see Dr. Pitcairn’s book below)! Salt, of course, in high doses is dangerous for any living creature.

Dogs lived on scraps from humans for eons before commercial dog food came around. They survived, and thrived just fine. Perhaps eating the leftovers wasn’t ideal for their diet, but I’d also like to argue that neither is commercial pet food an ideal diet. If you’ve ever investigated what makes up dog food, I am sure you would agree. Dogs didn’t graze on corn and wheat gluten as a main source of protein nor did they eat corn syrup, food dyes and additives when they roamed in the wild. They ate a diet much higher in quality protein which all dog food today is highly deficient.

Ever since my childhood canine friend had an allergic reaction to pet food, my family was forced to cook to save her life. And over the years of feeding her a simple diet of boiled chicken, rice, carrots, and celery — or hamburger, rice and a mixed assorted veggies — we became convinced by experience that not only was this a better diet for our dog friends — but that it was cheaper too — if only a little more time-consuming.

For over a decade now, I have been cooking two to three meals a week for my dog companions. I started out with Dr. Pitcairn’s book “Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats” and over the years I have learned to adapt to recipes that work best for my dogs. I highly recommend reading the basics, if you want to do what is best for your furry friends. Education is knowledge, and knowledge is power.

If I can help anyone out there — don’t hesitate to ask me. My two dogs are vibrant for their age. While I am not an expert, I have 12 years of experience to share with you. When people hear how old my current two dogs are — their jaws drop because they are so youthful in their behavior. They feel good!

My family has successfully cared for six dogs on a natural diet — and we swear by it! But don’t take my word for it…

Ask questions
Wonder why
Get your own answers

Knowledge is power

4-26-2007 Update:
I saw Dr. Martin Goldstein D.V.M. yesterday speaking on TV about optimal diets for dogs. He also supports feeding our dogs a natural diet. He says that dogs by nature are carnivores and that high carbohydrate diets which are often found in dry cereal and many canned foods — are not optimal for a healthy dog. Dogs need protein!

Check out his book: The Nature of Animal Healing : The Definitive Holistic Medicine Guide to Caring for Your Dog and Cat

Duper’s Delight

April 2, 2007/in Uncategorized/by Eyes for Lies

I ran across a story this weekend of suspect, Juan Aguilar, who is accused of harassing a 12 year-old girl in El Paso, Texas. Click on the video link on the left side of this page to watch the suspect talk.

The suspect denies the accusations that he did anything, but I don’t believe him. The situation doesn’t bode well for him from the circumstances and his past history — but that is not what caught my eye. Innocent people are accused all the time so I don’t let that impact my opinion.

What caught my eye, however, is that this man repeatedly flashes what is known as duper’s delight. He keeps radiating a type of joy or pleasure as he speaks over and over again! His eyes flash it, his mouth shows it — it’s undeniable.

If you are accused of something you DID NOT DO and you could face time behind bars — I would expect to see emotions that are consistent with that: anger, frustration, fear, etc. but I don’t see any of that. I see flits of joy, or glee which is a HUGE, HUGE red flag.

Do you see the duper’s delight? You don’t have to watch more than a minute or two of the video to see it.

People who are the worst…

March 30, 2007/in deceit, deception detection, truth/by Eyes for Lies

…at spotting deception, if you want my opinion, don’t question things.

They don’t question things.

While they may ask questions — they don’t dig for answers, or play the “what if” game. Or, if they do– they don’t do it with an open mind. These people are not researchers or fact finders. The majority of them don’t question authority. To them, people in authority are usually “experts” and “good people” who shouldn’t be questioned. After all, they hold a high-ranking status in society which should be respected — not doubted. I’ve come to describe these people as literalists.

Literalists are the people in our society who are the worst at spotting deception, and I guestimate they are somewhere around 15 -20% of people I meet.

The definition of a literalist from the dictionary is: “one who adheres to the letter or exact word; an interpreter according to the letter.” Most people when they hear the term literalist usually think of people who take the book of their religion and choose to believe in it word-for-word — like strict fundamentalists.

When I say literalist, I am using the term slightly differently. I am talking about people who take everything and everyone they met or get to know at face value — but my definition is void of religious implications.

Literalists, to me, don’t see the world in shades of gray. They only see black and white.

If you were to say to a literalist that their best friend was just seen stealing fifty dollars, while they might listen you out, they wouldn’t question the details of what happened. Instead, they’d automatically defend their friend, and tell you all the ways you must have misinterpreted the situation. They’d be certain someone misunderstood something. Literalists don’t stop to say with a truly open mind, “You know, that isn’t the person I know — but what happened? Why do you say that?” They don’t investigate the situation , or truly listen to what someone is saying without bias.

Literalists, however, are usually good people. They truly want to believe the best in everyone. They are often kind and giving and fiercely loyal people — probably to a flaw. They usually make good friends too.

If you continued to insist to a literalist that their best friend stole this money, and you are going to take action against their friend, a literalist would likely get annoyed with you. They would think quietly to themselves that you are the one with a problem — that you are a pessimist for thinking the way you do.

Literalists automatically assume if someone is nice — they are inherently good. Even in the face of people saying otherwise, literalists will continue to believe a good person is good until the evidence against that belief is clearly visible to their own eyes, or it is so overwhelming (i.e. they are the last to hold that believe), it is undeniable.

If someone has done something bad that they have witnessed with their own two eyes (like stealing) — a literalist will not trust that person again, and he or she will be known as inherently bad. They will still be nice, and kind to these “bad” people — but under the cover of their thoughts will be feelings of distrust, and perhaps feelings of “fear” that is not likely to ever go away completely — even after the passage of time — and renewed efforts to restore the distrust.

Literalists don’t understand human nature nor are they able to read emotions in people. Hence, they take the world at face value. When you and I see color, they only see black and white. They don’t see gray. They are, in essence, color-blind.

The reason I write this post is get people to ponder things more — to question things around them. I am not suggesting that you distrust anyone and everything you hear. Give people the benefit of the doubt, always– but do look at things and ask questions. If someone tells you someone is really nice — it’s okay to wonder why. Why are they nice? If someone tells you someone is really bad — don’t just accept it. Question why. You might find a brilliant, exceptional person underneath the exterior who has been greatly misunderstood.

The dumb question, as the saying goes, is the one that was never asked. As I see it, you have absolutely nothing to lose by questioning things. In fact, you might actually discover a new truth!

As I see it, people who are good at spotting deception find evidence to either support or reject their belief system. They are always looking for things to substantiate what they believe. They are naturally curious and inquisitive. They also don’t take things at face value. They question things all the time, and are open to a new belief if the evidence points them in a different direction.

Anyone, with any ability to detect lies, can improve their abilities by wondering why and asking questions — with a truly open mind to discover whatever may come their way.