Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

PETA: Whatever It Takes

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted October 5, 2005.


The progressive animal rights organization has a ruthless approach for getting coverage in the mass media -- with enviable results.
comix
petacomix

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
My Depression -- or Ours?
Tom Engelhardt

Democracy and Elections:
GOP Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters

DrugReporter:
As the Violence Soars, Mexico Signals It's Had Enough of America's Stupid War on Drugs
Silja J.A. Talvi

Election 2008:
Too Much Presidential Power -- We've Got to Address the 'Unitary Executive' Question
Dana Nelson

Environment:
Dear Mr. Next President -- Food, Food, Food
Michael Pollan

ForeignPolicy:
Obama Talks Tough About Afghanistan; Here's What He's Really in For
Anand Gopal

Health and Wellness:
McCain's Medicare Cuts Would Mean Hidden Tax Increases for Millions of Americans

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Mexico Braces for Economic Blow; Immigration Adds to Complexity of the Issue
Diego Cevallos

Media and Technology:
John McCain Sows the Seeds of Hatred
Rory O'Connor

Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman

Rights and Liberties:
Former McCain Supporter: McCain Is "Unleashing the Monster of American Prejudice"
Amy Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
Why Everyone Loves Hot, Smart Older Women
Vanessa Richmond

War on Iraq:
In Biggest Oil Sale Ever, Iraqi Government to Put 40 Billion Barrels of Reserves Up For Grabs
Terry Macalister, Nicholas Watt

Water:
Can the People Who Live in Coastal Towns Ever Be Safe From Hurricanes?
Lizzy Ratner

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For the record, I am neither a vegan nor a vegetarian. Nor am I an honorary member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). One of my best friends is, however, and he works at the PETA headquarters in the decrepit asphalt Venice of Norfolk, Va.

I started following PETA's activities because of my personal connection to it, and as I did, I became engrossed with its media tactics, which, to sum them up would be to say they say and do anything at all to draw attention. It sounds simple and obvious enough -- anything at all -- but it clearly isn't, or other groups would be following its lead. Other than the ACLU, which progressive advocacy group (yes, PETA is progressive) garners a regular share of news coverage across the country on a daily basis? Not a single one.

PETA goes after places, people, events and ideas of social meaning and finds a way to seize the headlines -- or create its own. It will do whatever it takes to expose people to its point of view. When PETA asks an agricultural town to change its name from say, Cowtown to Liberated Cowtown, it knows that a bored reporter in the surrounding region will fall for it and write a story about it, and that a bunch of readers sick of stories about septic tanks and cattle prices will fall for the headline. Somewhere in that story will be the sentence: "A PETA representative told the mayor that killing animals is wrong."

With that sentence, PETA scores a victory.

So PETA sends vegetarian chefs to Camp Casey; runs semi-nude pictures of Pamela Anderson with anti-fur captions; and urges the USDA not to rebuild animal labs at the Katrina-devastated Louisiana State University. And every time PETA gets mentioned in a story, it's a win for the organization -- and some real animals might be saved in the process.

Because the truth is, this animal rights thing is a tarpit. The more people are exposed to it, the less comfortable they are with the concept of animal suffering. That's the premise, anyway, and I think it's true.

PETA does have an activist bent in addition to its propaganda arm -- real people doing real things to stop the suffering of specific animals -- and it has a record of winning in that regard. But because of the fight it's up against -- the ubiquity of animal consumption across America -- this thing can only be tackled in degrees by exposure to propaganda about it.

Here's the other thing: PETA doesn't care about its general reputation. PETA is just a vehicle for the animal rights movement, and the staff is fully aware of this, so there's no such thing as bad press, and there's absolute indifference to folks who don't like the group's tactics. Anything at all that gets PETA in the headlines is a win for the animals.

From that perspective, the pundits and authors who tangle endlessly with PETA's campaigns end up working as suckers for the cause. Take Kathryn Jean-Lopez, a writer for the conservative National Review, who was shocked, appalled by PETA's "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign. Jean-Lopez fell for it badly, offering sentences to the animal rights movement on a silver platter. Perhaps her best was, "I'm not going to deny that a cattle slaughterhouse isn't disgusting." Her blinders were on so tight she managed to bump right into the anything at all approach without seeing it: "PETA issues its own reads of the Koran. It toys with the Book of Mormon. Few beliefs are spared PETA's offensiveness."

Too true. PETA doesn't care about Joseph Smith and his Book of Moroni. It cares about animals.

The freakish volume of activity that spills out of PETA is jaw-dropping. Just follow the goings-on of its website (or any of its dozens of spinoff sites) -- it unleashes hordes of powerful propaganda, from press releases and videos to images and investigative reports to photogalleries -- anything at all, and piles of it. I set up a visit with PETA's headquarters to see how it works.

Anything for the animals

Norfolk is primarily a shipping and Navy base city laid out over a system of ports, rivers and canals. It's got a nuked-out downtown typical of most American cities with a healthy dose of Southern racial segregation and poverty surrounding it. Thousands of jar-headed Navy boys fill the streets at night, clogging the bars and restaurants (many of which offer vegan cuisine as a result of PETA's local influence). The PETA building sticks out from all this. It sits on a small inlet on the Elizabeth river right by a small bridge heading into downtown. It's a modern, shiny, blue-green, five- or six-story glassy blot with a big, fat PETA logo right at the top. Inside about 180 staffers churn out the cause.


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pick your battles
Posted by: 7 Levels on Oct 5, 2005 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PETA is at the top of the list for why a lot of good progressive people steer clear of protest. It's gotten to be a joke and generally drags down the importance of speaking out by making itself the punchline. It's ok to be sexist, but don't drink milk ? Please. These fringe issues take too much attention away from the anti-war movement and only add to the left wing 'nut' stereotype. I'm all for animal rights and used to send money to PETA, but they have overstayed their welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pick your battles Posted by: grokked
» RE: Pick your battles Posted by: FoolFarseer
» RACISM in the name of AR Posted by: bobby fletcher
I agree with Grokked
Posted by: drSooz on Oct 5, 2005 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only True Progressive is a Whole Progressive: meaning one who willingly makes personal sacrifices in order to reduce the suffering of ANY PART OF THE NATURAL WORLD! That includes people, animals, wilderness, water, air - need I go on? It incorporates the philosophy that you don't have to love, or even like something in order to prevent its suffering or destruction, ie; animals, forests, slum dwellers. I care passionately about the world I'm leaving for my children and their children. I recycle, don't litter, try to keep myself and family healthy, treat my companion animals with kindness and respect, and treat the world around me the same way. Cruelty in ANY FORM, towards ANY LIVING THING, is unacceptable, and shows just how uncivilized we humans really are. The Golden Rule applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, not just homo sapiens - and we fail miserably at treating our own species with kindness and dignity. Why is it so easy to love one's dog or cat, but turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals and the destruction of the environment? PETA's tactics may not always be diplomatic or docile, but their intentions are - to inject religion into it - truly Christian: loving their neighbors as themselves, and never returning evil for evil. I believe that most, if not all, major religions incorporate this philosophy in some form. I watched the Chinese Fur Farm video and felt sick to my stomach as the still-alive skinned dog lifted his bloodied head and looked into the camera. My God, what have we come to?? And why are we still going there???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I agree with Grokked Posted by: Brandoc-D'Ha
» RE: PETA is RACIST and FASCIST Posted by: kittykat
» RE: PETA is RACIST and FASCIST Posted by: hcxholly
» RE: I agree with Grokked Posted by: gargirl
logical
Posted by: logical on Oct 5, 2005 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe if we started with stopping the inhuman practice of killing amimals it may evolve into stopping the inhuman practice of killing each other. Too simple?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah ... way too simple ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Simplistic in the extreme Posted by: pjmax
Read it Again
Posted by: silkreed on Oct 5, 2005 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First two posters, have you READ this article -- or each other? Read it again and pay attention. It's not about whether you agree or not, it's about what works -- taking precious progressive dollars and using them most effectively. There is a lot of information here... What's the triple meaning of "exploding ass"? It tells you in the second sentence after the quote. Read and learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ead it Again Posted by: RChenault
» one step at a time Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Read it Again Posted by: silkreed
License to Kill
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 5, 2005 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author repeatedly refers to "anything at all", the PETA philosophy that any way to get a meaningful plug is a good way, as if she doesn't approve, as if they don't impose appropriate limits on themselves in their crusade. Why shouldn't they do anything at all short of physical violence on living things (i.e., people)? And I'm not sure that killing five humans to save fifty animals isn't morally defensible. After all, if you had to sacrifice five humans to save fifty humans, that would not be considered in and of itself immoral. And many of us value the individual lives of each animal as much as those of the people that torture them.

As DrSooz implies, our loyalties should be to the earth and all of its life and life support systems collectively, animal, vegetable and mineral, not just the human race. Anthropocentricity is no more justified than ethnocentricity or egocentricity.

A compelling argument can be made that humanity, especially the American brand of it, is a threat to all of the rest of the earth, and that if man doesn't police himself better and soon, he deserves to be stopped.

I don't know who will do that, but the only candidates that I can think of are other men (intention self-annihilation of the human race), a deity or other extraterrestrial intelligence, or nature.

I recently posted the following here on Alternet:

"It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the earth had a way to protect itself from mankind. If it does, that would surely entail a great killing. I don't know if it's just America that has to be stopped or the entire human race, but I'm starting to see the merit in another asteroid driven mass extinction.

Finally, Bob Dylan's "License to Kill":

Man thinks 'cause he rules the earth he can do with it as he pleases
And if things don't change soon, he will.
Oh, man has invented his doom,
First step was touching the moon.

Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused,
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill.
All he believes are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies.

Now he worships at an altar of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled.
Oh, man is opposed to fair play,
He wants it all and he wants it his way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: License to Kill Posted by: Colin
» THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» The Problem with THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» AND YOUR POINT IS...? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: License to Kill Posted by: crusty
» I REST MY CASE Posted by: LMNOP
» An explanation Part I Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: An explanation Part II Posted by: crusty
» RE: I REST MY CASE Posted by: crusty
» RE: I REST MY CASE Posted by: crusty
There is nothing "unethical" about eating meat
Posted by: Velos on Oct 5, 2005 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry, but I AM a progressive,....yes, even a "Librul" in the truest sense of the word. I've been so for over 40 years.

As far as I'm concerned, There's plenty of room in the world for animals....right next to the mashed potatoes!

If we "progressives" are going to have any chance of taking back and saving this civilisation from the Fascist Nut-Jobs, we have got to distance ourselves from our own 'lunatic fringe' element.

Fanatic demogogues, be they Christian Taliban Theocrats, or Animal Rights 'Wackos' are cut from the same bolt, and neither are worthy of support; or even mildly serious attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compassion is Enlightenment
Posted by: logspirit on Oct 5, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If You don't understand the animal rights movement, perhaps it is because Your addiction won't let You... Addictions are blinding, and the flesh addiction is super incandescent. Caring about suffering in ANY form, suffering by ANY sentient being is what drives the animal rights/vegan/peace movement. After all, people are animals too. And many suffer from fatal illnesses, caused by their diets. The compassion of this movement is for those ignorant, pitiful people too. People lost in an angry twisted blood lusting sadistic/masochistic hell that makes them want to take down the rest of the world, as they loose touch with the value, and beauty, of life. We are the way we eat - killers, war mongers, spouse beaters - flesh eaters. The denial of addiction overwhelms, and otherwise 'civilized' folks attempt to justify the unforgivable... compounding their errors by proclaiming hierarchical differences - that other 'mere' animals are somehow less important in the web of life than the grandiose human animal - and our society devolves into horrible madness, etching a track to our own extinction. Billions of dollars for DEATH and MISERY -- and WAR. Blood lust. It's a habit. It's a lifestyle. It's a social disease. How quickly the blinders go up, and the sabers come out, when such vile personal and community habits are exposed. But for the trees, we miss the forest. The way humans are choosing to eat is also the single greatest cause of environmental destruction, and the current massive global wave of extinction. Can anyone really claim to be posh and sophisticated while chewing on a dead animal, stringy guts caught in their teeth? It's better to be startled by the reality than to fall hopelessly into illusion. Can any flesh eater deny the bloody carnage on their plates? Deny the unimaginable suffering imposed on defenseless sensitive creatures - and their own family? Well, it happens all the time - 5 thousand humans starve to death every hour, because world grain prices are driven out of their grasp by the callous animal parts vending industry - driven by the demand for pounds, nay tons, of flesh. And some folks think that's just fine, exciting, superior. What mindless, heartless fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Compassion is Enlightenment Posted by: tkd82arty@netscape.net
» RE: Compassion is Enlightenment Posted by: jjcascade
PETA sets animal rights back 50 years
Posted by: jfreed on Oct 5, 2005 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Generally speaking, I consider myself a reasonable, compassionate, progressive-minded sort of individual. But whenever I see the latest exploits of PETA, it makes me want to go out and club a few baby seals to death; you know, just to show em. Probably not exactly the reaction they're looking for.

The mentality of "any press is good press" is fine and dandy if you happen to be Aleister Crowley or Marilyn Manson. But if you're trying to convince a vast majority to take a stand on a moral issue contrary to their current worldview, that's a sure-fire way to set your cause back a good 50 years.

The problem, of course, is that it makes animal-rights activists look like a bunch of whack jobs; foaming at the mouth, looking for any way to insult the people they are trying to influence. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the way humans treat other animals, but you wouldn't know it from the news. Thanks to PETA, most news stories about animal-rights issues impart the underlying message "if you care about animal rights, something is wrong with you."

It almost makes you think that PETA is really a covert operation funded by the meat industry. No one benefits from PETA's escapades more than those who profit from animal cruelty. The reason is that every time PETA makes the news, they are in fact saying "animal cruelty is something that only people with a screw loose care about." Why should Average Joe American care about animal suffering, when as far as he knows, the only people out there who care about it are just a hair short of being terrorists?

The IRA has learned that you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. By putting down their weapons, they have come within inches of their goal, a voice in Parliament. Hopefully one day, PETA will learn this lesson and put down their weapons. Maybe then, the animal rights movement will gain the key thing it lacks, a sense of legitamcy in the eyes of the average person on the street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA and terrorism
Posted by: Colin on Oct 5, 2005 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is a terrorist? It's someone who is prepared to use violence to persue a political claim. Given that PETA continually refuse to condemn the actions of violent animal rights protestors - what does that make them?

I remember when an undercover journalist was caught by ALF (the Animal Liberation Front and a seperate group but with close ties to PETA) who as a punishment, took the shirt from his back and BRANDED (like you do with cattle) A L F in 6 inch letters across his back. He will be scarred for life. PETA, to paraphrase, basically said that it was his own fault.

Are you a pet lover? Try typing in 'PETA the truth' on the internet. Have a look for yourself at their attitudes towards your favourite pooch. Animal welfare is worth taking seriously but these individuals are just like Sinn Fein, the political arm of a bunch of thugs.

I would urge anyone who agrees with PETA's principles to investigate how they plan to put it into practice. You might find you are not supporting the apparently progressive group you think you are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK PETA is 'successful' ... changing the hearts, minds, and laws
Posted by: AdamSelene11726 on Oct 5, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, "not so much."

I will grant that PETA probably destroyed the NY Fur industry.

Not so nice for the displaced $9.45/hr furriers. but very nice the minks and the foxes who are now living free and eating rabbits ... Oh ... that's right ... the little furry critters aren't living free -- they were all killed when the fur farms shut down. Well, they're out of their misery now, and PETA has moved on to make theatre on the meat dairy and leather industries.

I'm not one to begrudge someone a 28-32K/yr job that lets them be creative, feel superior than the common herd, and "stick it to the man" from time to time. Lord knows, I've done more Quixoitic things for far less.

The part I don't get is how obsessing on Lactose Intolerance Syndrome is "Progressive."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA is going to self-destruct, while hurting the Progressive movement
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 5, 2005 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a small dairy farmer, and I am also a progressive. I do not mistreat animals, and consider myself a humane person both in my dealings with other people and with animals. I have eaten meat all my life, and both of my parents--including my Dad who I farmed with until his death last year at 90--were also meat eaters. They were also the people who instilled in me my progressive and liberal outlooks. My Dad was one of the nicest people you could ever know. And according to PETA we were all monsters for eating meat.

I feel that PETA is no different from the Taliban, the Christian Right, the Rev. Jim Jones cult, or any other group that feels they have the TRUTH--no questions asked and don't even try to argue with them about it.

An organization that is increasingly powered by it's own emotions rather than the facts and logic is going to fail.

It is too bad because the tactics of PETA, which will eventually cause it to go down in flames, will only hurt the progressive movement.

I have a suspicion that many of these PETA people have never been hungry, or have faced the prospect of major hunger. In fact, I venture that many of them are spoiled children of privelage.

The point of the author in the article i.e. that PETA "gets attention"--that that in itself is all that matters--is all too commonly also seen in the spin media today used by the right wing and "religious" groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA = Helmholtz Watson
Posted by: bettsoff on Oct 5, 2005 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writing something from nothing. Propaganda. Feelies. Visceral reactions. Regardless of what you think of animal rights, PETA should not be any progressive's blueprint for how to run a publicity campaign. As a poster above says, they succeed best in convincing the public that anyone who cares for animal rights is a loony. I personally don't want anyone fighting for my right to marry using tactics like PETA's. What a fucking embarassment that would be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep up the good work PETA
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Oct 5, 2005 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a heavily Catholic area in New England. Two years ago, PETA put up an ad on a billboard by a major highway showing the Virgin Mary standing over a dead chicken and imploring people to think about compassion for animals. The older locals were outraged. There was nothing inherently offensive about the sign: people objected to the use of the image of Mary. After the paper printed an article on it, the sign did got vandalized. But can you imagine how many young people must have gone to PETA's website to learn more? Good for PETA.
I adopted a slow conversion to vegetarianism that took years and initially did it only for health purposes. For years I did not eat meat at home, but did at holidays with my family. However, once I learned about the horrors of factory farming, I quit altogether. I agree with grokked 100%. It's about these greedy agribusiness firms and their sickening quest for money and profits at all costs. I tell people I am not so malnourished I need to eat something that was tortured before it died. Legumes and beans will do just fine.

www.factoryfarm.org:
www.factoryfarming.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keep up the good work PETA Posted by: bettsoff
» OK betsoff and crusty, but how? Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» Some food sites I find useful Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Some food sites I find useful Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
Amused at PETA response.
Posted by: grokked on Oct 5, 2005 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I find interesting about many of these critical responses is that they have yet to provide an alternative to PETA's strategy.

Perhaps I missed a staff meeting, but I've yet to see very much in the way of shining success in the world of progressive activism. Last time I checked, we were losing on every front. Pick your cause, "the war", "the war on drugs", "minority rights", "environment", "x-ian idiocy in schools", yada, yada, yada... At best, existing progressive efforts seem to be delaying tactics. The cristo-fascists are still cleaning house with us, and trashing the planet in the process.

PETA is fighting back in a way that least gets them heard.

Silence can only serve the agenda of the republican hive mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» silence... Posted by: jfreed
» RE: silence... Posted by: grokked
» RE: silence... Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: silence... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Amused at PETA response. Posted by: Aspirations80
Since I'm posting from Fishkill, NY ...
Posted by: just john on Oct 5, 2005 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I can state with certitude that Peta are drooling morons with no credibility anywhere and should have any "non-profit" tax status revoked.

I'm surprised any of these cretins are potty trained.

Why? Because I'm posting from Fishkill, NY. Look it up on Google or Yahoo -- "fishkill" and "peta".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA Has My Support
Posted by: Sandra on Oct 5, 2005 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our dependence on meat is like our dependence on oil. Both have huge implications globally. Many more people can be fed by eating the grain that now goes to animals cultivated for their meat. Human beings are so arrogant. How can we call ourselves civilized unless we can take care of the innocents such as children and animals and of those who can't care for themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: Colin
» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: Colin
» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: satyagirl
» RE: PETA Has My Support Posted by: cerry
PETA or AIDS?
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 5, 2005 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you support PETA, take off your AIDS ribbon and throw it away.

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

AIDS research is animal research. Ferns don't have immune systems. As someone who has been involved in AIDS and other biomedical research, I can say that the rats used in our experiments were not "tortured", the common word used by PETA types. My group provided evidence for which brain structure is involved in AIDS dementia, a very tragic Alzheimer's-like condition that often comes with the late stages of full-blown AIDS.

Do I think we should be pouring shampoo into bunnies' eyes? Of course not. But if you are against animal research, don't get your kids immunized. For anything. If they are born with a congenital heart defect, don't do anything and hope for the best. If you get cancer, don't accept any medical care whatsoever. Don't ever get a blood transfusion, use antibiotics, have bypass surgery, organ or joint replacement or kidney dialysis. Don't treat diabetes with insulin, treat high blood pressure or cataracts or epilepsy or ALS. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Get some facts about animal research, and filter out the lies (like "stealing pets for research") and the hype from clueless celebrities. Alec Baldwin raises money for both PETA and for breast cancer research. That's like putting a humidifyer and a dehumidifyer in the same room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: pomes
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: JoeEbola
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: launcher
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: CinCin
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: Newtopia
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: satyagirl
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: Queervegan
» RE: PETA or AIDS? Posted by: fanny666
Y is PETA a _Progressive_ Animal Rights Group?
Posted by: fairleft on Oct 5, 2005 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a regressive animal rights group out there? Or, is not eating meat inherently 'progressive'? What about the vegetarian hindu nationalists of India when they are burning down mosques, are they 'progressive' too?

Anyway, I don't care about animals as much as I should, so I'm irritated only by the identification of animal rights as a 'progressive' cause. Why does the left have to be saddled with this? What did we do to deserve that?

PETA, please do progressives a favor and identify yourselves as a Republican/Conservative/Religious animal rights group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animal rights transcends PETA tactics
Posted by: a commenter on Oct 5, 2005 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As sexy as news coverage of ethical issues is, I think PETA has a point here:

"Look, we're living in a time when the media is titillating. If we could sit down with CNN with an investigation, we would. But the reality is that it's not like that. It's a tabloid media."

By the way, this article has just as apparent of an agenda as PETA does. Don't let it fool you - Journalists rarely cover issues without some type of "peg."

I also find it disheartening how progressives are so quick to distance themselves from animal rights, so as to appear more moderate or level-headed. PETA, though ridiculous in many ways, is too often used as political capital for otherwise like-minded individuals trying to triangulate themselves into the mainstream. It'd be refreshing if people could separate PETA's tactics from the movement and take an honest look at the merits of a vegetarian lifestyle, instead of dodging the issue all together by brushing it off as mere PETA "propaganda."

If you disagree with PETA's tactics, please understand there are alternatives and that one organization should never have a monopoly on a movement. Check out Vegan Outreach for a more more measured, reasoned and intellectually honest approach to reducing animal suffering.

Lastly, please remember that animal rights doesn't mean giving animals the right to vote, own a car or buy a gun. And please understand that being an animal rights advocate doesn't mean being a boisterous ideologue. It's as simple as reducing suffering and can be approached as a quiet, nonconfrontational and truly compassionate lifestyle.

Vegan Outreach

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive not
Posted by: rbarry on Oct 5, 2005 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article and half of the repsonses make my blood boil. Sure, PETA allows some of its members to make some extreme statements under the PETA umbrella. But if you look at their web site, many of the articles are pretty convincing to a thinking moderate person.
I EAT MEAT. Not just milk, but actual, confined to a nasty pen chicken and cute little sheep which is sold to me as lamb. But that doesn't mean that I can't think about these issues and hope that the people who control our food production might become a little more sensative.
YOU'RE ALL WIFE-BEATER SUPPORTERS. Those of you who think that the bible isn't responsible for wife-beating and slave-holding; those of you who think that people who believe that drinking milk is wrong are more exreme then you are insane consumers of an insane society.
I AM A HYPOCRITE. Since I worry about the suffering of animals but don't even spend the extra bucks on organic meat. But I still see the issues from more of a realistic point of view then those of you who are bashing people whose aim in life is to bring awareness to animal suffering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» fellow hypocrite Posted by: antiapathy
Perspective
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 5, 2005 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If an anti-abortion group used the tactics of PETA many 'progressives' would be outraged. If PETA were handled by our government the way it handles anti-abortion groups they would also be outraged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PR Conference for Progressives
Posted by: newsmush on Oct 5, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's do better at PR.

Check out the True Spin Conference.

www.truespinconference.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PR Conference for Progressives Posted by: Radicalizer
Missing the Point of PETA's Argument
Posted by: Radicalizer on Oct 5, 2005 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what's really important to realize here is that even extremists (on all sides of the ideological spectrum) contribute greatly to discussions about the way we view the world.

I myself am not a vegetarian or a vegan, but I do not think one has to be to understand PETA's perspective. People have been shouted down on this comment board already for arguing this position, but what PETA is actually doing is challenging the idea that we as humans are the "top dogs" of the planet, and that the life of a human is somehow worth more than that of an animal. On that front, I don't see how anyone can mount a successful counter-argument. Why is it OK for us to raise cows that will eventually be slaughtered for our consumption and not for us to clone and raise humans for organ donations for example?

I agree with the critique that PETA's tactics are aggrandizing and often don't take into consideration the socio-economic conditions that many poor people live in. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to give up eating animal products when that is all they have to eat. Similarly, I think it's naive to think that people who live in harsh climates (ie. the Inuit of the far north) do not have access to a lot of variety of foods, and need to eat meat to survive.

However, to call PETA fascist or racist is to miss the point of what they are arguing. PETA's message is geared more to the mass consumers of our "fast food nation(s)" in the western world who do have the disposable income and the information available to make more conscious decisions about the food they consume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bingo Posted by: Coleman
Peta Kills Animls
Posted by: CinCin on Oct 5, 2005 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For everything they "try" to espouse about being good to animals, they turn around and kill the animals they "rescue".

Check it out: www.petakillsanimals.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CCF is a pack of whores Posted by: Queervegan
More harm than good.
Posted by: malarky on Oct 5, 2005 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, I do wholeheartedly support many of the intelligent organizations and individuals in their animal rights efforts.

But not those of PETA's.

PETA's questionable literary propaganda tactics are dismissible compared to their direct actions that cause more harm to animals than anything. There are too many accounts out there of PETA people going on missions of releasing animals from zoo's or circuses, only for those animals to end up getting run over on the freeway, not be able to fend for themselves, or get shot by people who for some reason don't see a need for large wildcats or wolfs wandering around in residential areas.

A friend of mine described a personal experience in which she had gathered some footage of elephant beatings at a circus. She had a meeting setup with city officials to discuss pulling funding for the circus. She also had an array of biologists, behaviorists, economists, and various other researchers to back her up.

Then the good people at PETA broke into her things and stole her evidence to use it in offensive posters that would serve no purpose other than to completely undermine and dismantle the intelligent efforts that were already underway. She had to cancel her meeting and nothing was accomplished.

PETA does nothing but harm actual animal rights efforts, and gives a bad name to the progressive/liberal movements they claim to be in alignment with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA Cares only about Publicity.
Posted by: CinCin on Oct 5, 2005 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA's headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.” Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote recently:

People surrender their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.


PETA talks a good game about caring for animals, but seems uninterested in saving the only creatures it actually has contact with. If PETA were sincere, it could use its incredible wealth to buy a huge plot of land where its thousands of victims could live out their natural lives. Instead, these animals meet PETA's hypocrisy head-on, in the form of "tough love."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ambivalent
Posted by: Snoopy Brown on Oct 5, 2005 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask any large group of vegans and animal rights activists about PETA, and they'll split into 3 camps:

Those who love PETA to pieces
Those who loathe them with a passion
And those who, like me, are deeply ambivalent

My experience is that the "love 'em" group tend to be youngsters and in the minority, and the loathe them and ambigvalent groups tend to be those who've been vegan/AR-oriented for a long time.

My attitude is that they have done some very cool things, but that they have also done many things that range from "stupid but harmless?" to "dear god, how appalling! It's going to set us back years!" It seems that their scattergun approach has some successes, but when a huge chunk of your natural allies are thoroughly embarrassed/enraged by you, and when most people's reaction to you is to roll their eyes and become immediately hostile towards those who share your goals of ending cruelty, you might want to rethink not your overall approach of viral advertising, but how you decide to run your campaigns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seven Things You Don't Know About PETA
Posted by: CinCin on Oct 5, 2005 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) PETA president Ingrid Newkirk says her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs).
2) PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected.
3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats.
4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”
5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.
6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.”
7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA/Vegan arguments are nonsense
Posted by: rastaman10 on Oct 5, 2005 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been engaged in this debate before, and frankly, the arguments of animal rights activists/vegans/PETA etc are all nonsense. Yes factory farming is bad for the environment, but no worse than monoculture farming that essentially converts fuel (pesticides, herbicides, diesel) into cropland. Marginal croplands are far better served as pasture than for tracks of soybeans. Factory farms or only part of the problem, industrial farming, whether livestock o