Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

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:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Jan Frel

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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.

When you're writing a story about an organization, the last person in the world you want to get your information from is a member of the communications staff. But in my case that's exactly who I wanted to talk to. My first interviewee was Colleen O' Brien, PETA's communications manager.

As bluntly as possible, I asked her about PETA's sending vegetarian chefs to Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas during Bush's August vacation: Do you feel like you made a good return on that investment? After all, PETA is not Morgan Stanley; while it's a $25 million a year operation, it still has to pick its battles.

O' Brien started by spinning me, saying, "Vegetarianism is a cruel-free way of living." She said PETA went into Camp Casey with a non-partisan agenda -- "Those folks were out there, hungry" -- and gave them a vegetarian alternative to eating "decomposing corpses." After I let her go on with this for a while (and yes, putting her quotes in this article is a successful advancement of the animal rights agenda), I tried to bring her back to the issue of whether PETA had mercilessly seized on the fact that hundreds of bored reporters were in Camp Casey, looking to add color to their stories about a poor mother who lost her son in an awful war.

Then she said what I was looking for: "What sets PETA apart from a lot of other groups, is that we have a special relationship with the media. We don't have budgets for the placement of ads like, I suppose, some other groups. We have to do stunts to reach the greatest number of people."

So was the Casey stunt a success? "We had some write-ups," O' Brien said.

Looking back at the coverage from Camp Casey, I found a few mentions. Like the 16th sentence in a Sheehan article from the Des Moines Register: "But instead of corn dogs and funnel cakes, they ate veggie burgers grilled by PETA members and free meals cranked out by a volunteer-staffed kitchen." Corn dogs vs. veggie burgers: you couldn't ask for a better contrast for those Iowa readers.

I reached back to something for O' Brien that I knew had been a massive publicity success: the fax PETA sent to Yasser Arafat in the spring of 2003 asking him to stop using donkeys as portable bomb devices. A donkey strapped with explosives had recently exploded on the road between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion, killing only the animal.

There's no more dependable source of pious reporting and righteous outrage than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And with that letter, PETA struck gold. Network and cable television anchors just couldn't resist a bite on it, including Fox News' Brit Hume (who used the incident as a platform to pop in Ari Fleischer's Orwellification of the term "suicide bomber"):

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has faxed Yasser Arafat protesting the use of a dynamite-laden donkey as a homicide bomber. The group, which complained about the exploding ass but not about the coincidental murder of Israelis, urged Arafat to, quote, "Leave animals out of this conflict."
That's a towering home run for the animal rights movement. A deadpan, Reagan-faced anchor put the Fox watchers on full alert with the mention of Terror, their favorite topic, and also heard a funny pun -- dropping their drawbridges to the unconscious wide open. And then an invading direct quote from PETA sprinted right in.

Of course, PETA didn't get anything close to a promise from Arafat, and it didn't really matter. The point is it siphoned piles of headlines and TV coverage away from a bunch of cynical demagogues in the Middle East and in the direction of the animal rights cause. All it took was a fax with an absurd request to the head of the PLO.

I asked Colleen O' Brien if PETA had put out that letter because the organization truly cared about that dead donkey or for that matter, donkeys in Palestine. She said it was about that donkey and the donkeys of Palestine, but also the way we think about donkeys in general. She more or less agreed that while the letters, stunts and investigations were contextually about instances of animal suffering, they were more about the soft sell to change mass behavior. Not that leather jacket or evil clothing factory, rather the existence of leather jackets, evil clothing factories and the whole clothing market for that matter.

I pressed on with my big Lightning Strikes question: "It's Anything At All, isn't it?" Anything at all to get coverage, so that humans stop making animals suffer; any propaganda, any picture, song, performance, that makes an impact. Anything, right?

I wish she had said, "Yes. Anything." But I did get a nod in the affirmative. "Look, we're living in a time when the media is titillating," O' Brien said. "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." Her hope was to provide "images that stay in people's heads."

A glorious tour

After O' Brien left the conference room, I looked out the windows facing the main office. Dozens of PETA staffers sat in a large room, earnestly staring at their computer screens. Handbills and stickers from past campaigns covered the walls, desks and hard drives. One staffer's "companion animal" sat in the aisle with its tail wagging in pure bliss. A mock-up poster of Wendy from Wendy's looked on approvingly, her cleaver fresh and dripping from her latest bovine carve-up session.

Next to speak with me was "Karin Robertson," manager of PETA's Fish Empathy Project. There are quotations around "Karin" because her real name is GoVeg.com. She had it legally changed from Karin Robertson back in 2003, a move that produced piles and piles of headlines (and now a mention here). It still gets a mention pretty much anytime GoVeg's Fish Empathy Project gets in the news.

After we talked about the horrors of the way fish are treated and how they have feelings etc., we came to GoVeg's approach to dealing with the media. GoVeg told me that it's almost impossible to get the press to deal with an issue directly. "They only come up with as many sound bites as possible." I agreed.

"That's why," she said, "we work really hard to make a concise point." A high-vitamin-content sound bite. That's what happened with Brit Hume and the exploding ass, and it's also what happened with GoVeg's project to get the Long Beach California aquarium to stop serving fish.

The sound bites PETA constructs have metrical rules as tight as a haiku. And they must draw on the essential tools of rhetoric -- metaphors, powerful images, etc. -- or fail; everything has to be in that sound bite or else the soft sell is a failure. GoVeg's sound bite in this case hoodwinked poor Amanda Covarrubias at the L.A. Times, who put it in the first sentence of her article: "An animal rights group wants the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach to gut its cafeteria menu of fish and seafood, arguing that 'serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show.'"

At least a dozen other major media outlets ran with that quote, including The New York Times and, of course, Fox News.

GoVeg took me on a tour of the rest of the building. There was a room for the Writers Group -- a bunch of staffers whose duties include writing letters to the editor and coordinating volunteers to do the same. She pointed outside to the dog park that's open for the local community to use. The park, of course, sports a message board with plenty of animal rights information for visitors to read.

We also saw the stockroom, where five staffers were busily filling up packets to mail off to PETA's army of volunteer activists.

The stockroom was filled with marvelous propaganda covering the full spectrum of Anything At All. There were hundreds of small stackable plastic tubs, each with labels like, "306 MOD Caged Chimp Stencil" or "STU 224 Question Authority: PIG." Inside each tub was an exquisite means of communicating the animal rights agenda.

In one drawer I found some wonderful imitations of those 1980s Garbage Pail Kids trading cards. Written in fluid Spanish, they had been designed for Hispanic children. Some caring genius at PETA called the cards Chupaleches -- "Milk Suckers."

Part of PETA's Eche La Leche (Ditch Milk) campaign, the Chupaleches on the four-card set I took home feature Ling Ladron De Leche ("Ling the Milk Thief"), a lacto-fattened girl who sports a guilty look on her face as she squats behind the legs of a pissed-off cow and drinks from its udder. The Ling card brilliantly communicates dozens of key things; primarily, that if you tried to get your milk from its true source, you'd find yourself like Ling; eyes averted from the quarry, sucking on the teats of a livid heifer.

The card next to Ling is Andrea Anti-Lactosa, who sits on the toilet clutching her stomach as she deals with the consequences of having poured a whole quart of milk down her gullet. The empty milk container rests at her feet looking like the murder weapon in a crime scene. On the back of Andrea's card is a mockup of a Wanted! notice, which reads: "Blow your nose, it's dripping out! Andrea's got milk, but she also has painful and foul-smelling gas. The faster she quits milk, the faster her family and friends can breathe in peace."

Something a child can understand.

PETA wins

GoVeg also took me to a library and reference room filled with shelves of black binders. Each binder contained pages of clippings of PETA's successes, starting from its humble origins in the basement of founder Ingrid Newkirk's house in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. It was a glorious hall of fame.

It takes a powerful cause to assemble a clipping collection like this; to persuade someone to change their name; to work tirelessly for very little money (most salaries at PETA are between $28-32k). Applying such tactics to a cause less visceral than animal rights, but just as valuable -- like, say, lower carbon emissions at the 17 most polluting coal plants in America -- isn't as easy. But as an outpouring of a wider environmental movement that does anything at all to change hearts and minds? I think so.

I headed back to the conference room for my third and final interview, with Dan Shannon, the manager of peta2 -- the youth outreach arm of PETA. Shannon is a bright and lucid fellow. After a few minutes with him, it was clear to me that if PETA's approach was a dazzling testimony to what an understanding of mass media in the 21st century can do for a cause, peta2's is a refined, clinical application of that method.

I asked Shannon how he uses the web to get to young folk. He told me that web videos were the latest means of reaching kids he was trying to master. "We promote them virally." He told me the single biggest success for peta2 so far came when one kid with a blog on the popular myspace.com put up a link to PETA's frightening Inside the Chinese Fur Trade video, which was in turn linked to and emailed around in a blizzard. "Three hundred thousand people watched that video, and it came from this one kid."

We talked about the successful peta2 street teams -- groups of young volunteers who protest in their local areas with coordination from HQ. Shannon said the inspiration for this model wasn't pulled out of some progressive handbook; rather it was copied from a model of what record companies have been doing to promote album sales. "It's the companies that do these things. ... They spend millions figuring it out, and I'm thinking, all right, thanks for the idea!"

Who does peta2 go after with its finite budget? "The kids who are savvy." That's the same group Pentagon recruiting manuals tell you to hoard like dragons: the influencers.

It was a delight to be in the presence of a winner. How rare to see a non-profit group beating our commercial society at its own game, in aid of something that is truly good for the world. My visit confirmed for me what I had come to believe as a casual observer: PETA is the most successful, iron-fisted, 501c3 I have ever witnessed; and the only one to make it out of the progressive slums and wage a winning battle at the mass media level.

In tragic contrast to PETA are the scores of non-profits that, despite good faith and hard work, watch their resources sink into the sand, their messages ignored by the public and the media. When I asked Colleen O' Brien why other progressive causes don't adopt PETA's approach, she gave me an absent look. "Their tactics are different from ours ... It could be that they are hesitant." That's all I could get out of her.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

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


Advertisement
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 or seed farming, is the whole problem. We should strive to achieve SUSTAINABLE farming, where livestock for grazing on fallow and natural fertilizer production are a necessary component.

Inhumane farming practices are bad, I agree, we should support humane farming, as many farmers in Europe are proposing--a livestock Bill of Rights. A cow can live a far better life in a humane farm than roaming in the wild.

Nutritionally, the information is so cloudy, it is virtually impossible to come to any rational conclusion as to the whether or not the eating of meat is good or bad for you. If you eat too much meat its probably bad, if you don't eat enough meat, then you have to very carefully to injest the necessary vitamins, minerals and components that meat provides. Vegans like to say that a vegan diet is "for everyone" or "natural" but they don't like to talk about the thousands of former vegans who were forced off the diet because of malnourishment. A vegan diet is not a "natural" diet, we are not herbivors. The vast majority of diets in the world contain some amount meat-eating, and the nutritional basis for these diets goes back thousands of years. Some diets, like the Inuit, are almost exclusively meat and have been for millenia. People tend not to eat what makes them sick.

Finally, I would agree with those who likened PETA to the anti-abortion crusaders. Veganism is essentially a spiritual movement, the elevation of killing animals equal to the killing of human beings. We are the only animals that display any kind of remorse for the killing of other animals--and I think that's a good thing--but we have to look at what's rational and logical. Eating meat is healthy and the keeping of livestock is as old as civilization itself, and benefits both humans and animals. Livestock is a vital part of a sustainable agriculture system.

If you strip away logic, veganism, the real goal of PETA, is little more than religion.

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

Effectiveness and what to do until...
Posted by: Theodore on Oct 5, 2005 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that PETA knows how to get press. The question remains though: To what extent have PETA's efforts contributed to improving the treatment of animals? I don't presume to know the answer; I don't even think this is really a measurable quantity; I do think it's important to avoid confusing fame with success.

Perhaps the day will come when the whole of humanity is vegan and views its carnivorous history as barbaric. Until that day comes many people will continue to eat meat. And until that day comes, we need people working to make sure that the animals that become our food are treated as humanely as possible, given the circumstances. A great example is Temple Grandin. We also need to adopt an attitude of appreciation for these animals and commit to avoiding wastefulness.

How can these other related causes get the publicity they need to be successful? Probably not the way PETA gets its name out.

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

proof
Posted by: karyse on Oct 5, 2005 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of comments on this article actually proves the point of the article -- love them or hate them, you know who they are.

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

» RE: proof Posted by: just john
It's really a simple matter...Either you get PETA, or you don't.
Posted by: Newtopia on Oct 5, 2005 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either you get PETA, or you don't. If you get them, you agree with them. If you don't, you won't.

PETA is an incredible organization. One of the best. Change is always always difficult and uncomfortable, and getting people to change their attitudes about animals is on par philosophically with how we changed our attitudes about Black slaves, which were also viewed as animals (3/5ths human), just ones we didn't eat, like dogs or mules.

Calling them "terrorists", aside from lazy and demagogish, is laughable. First of all, "terrorism" is a tactic, not an identity or identifier. Everyone can use it, and thus, everyone can be it. Nation-States, like the United States of America, are the single largest employers of terrorism.

Keep it up, PETA! You have more support than you know.

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

PETA is a cult
Posted by: gp on Oct 5, 2005 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It irritates me that people insist on calling PETA "progressive". Is progressive now defined as following a certain dietary regulation, a certain lifestyle? "Thou shallt not eat meat, for it is abomination in the eyes of thy PETA goddess". "Thou shallt not own beings that go on all fours, for it will make you unclean" --It rather sounds like a step back to me.

Many posters have correctly pointed out the fact that while PETA sanctimoniously preaches to deeply care for animals and their well-being, its employees have been caught illegally disposing of animals they euthanised. I find it hard to believe this is an isolated case. It is more like the tip of the iceberg.

Given that and their vows to turn the world into a vegan heaven on Earth, their uncompromising tactics to reach that goal, and their clinging to beliefs in spite of the lack of scientific evidence, I say PETA is a cult. An agressive, dangerous, fundamentalist cult. With all the inconsistencies, and hypocritical rhetoric it implies.

Furthermore, PETA is an organisation that can only be conceived in the well-fed middle-class strata in a First World country. Their beliefs and actions are testimony to the disconnection between middle-class Americans and their food. Food not being critical to this group, they cannot understand how consumption of meat can be critical to the health and survival of millions of people around the world. I will add that PETA as an organisation is narrow-minded, elitist, and "benevolently" racist.

With so many problems around the world (poverty, racism, war, hunger, depletion of natural resources, etc.), the welfare of animals should not be a priority. I, for one, place the well-being of my fellow humans above the "rights" of any animal.

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

» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: Newtopia
» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: just john
» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: Newtopia
» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: PETA is a cult Posted by: bettsoff
Although I am a meat-eater . . .
Posted by: daveinchi on Oct 5, 2005 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . I think PETA's tactics are well worth examining, because they are doing a FANTASTIC job, obviously, of raising their issue before the world.

I may not agree with their dietary requirements, but I don't think PETA is insisting that everyone in the world become vegetarian - although some the membership might like that quite well. They want us to THINK about what happens when we eat meat, and that face the real issues that surround it. A lot of people don't want to think about the ramifications of their actions, and I think the issues that PETA's raising make perfect sense. It's a pretty good question really - why do we treat pigs and cows in ways that we wouldn't imagine treating our cats and dogs, even if we wanted to eat them!

These are legitimate issues, and PETA has every right to bring them before the public, just like anyone else. Some of the rest of us might learn something from their mobilization and tactics. They are raising consciousness, and doing it very well.

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

Each issue is different
Posted by: Newtopia on Oct 5, 2005 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite PETA's tactics and desire to have us look at all animal issues monolithically, as with every issue, there are many sides, and each has its own situational nuances.

I generally admire and respect PETA's work. I don't have to agree with everything they say and do to support them, nor do I have to adopt their strict sectarian lifestyle. It is not an all or nothing proposition, and I imagine PETA people wouldn't turn down your support just because you don't believe fish have complex emotions. As with most social movements, you need to get people in the door somewhere by connecting with them somewhere on some issue, and then bring them along as far as you can once they are in. A 75%-down-with-the program supporter is better than none.

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

Viewing PETA In A Different Light
Posted by: mstenger on Oct 5, 2005 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article really opened my eyes to the fact that if PETA were just standing around saying "Oh, please don't eat the animals" nobody would listen. Eureka! I have renewed respect and enthusiasm for this group who, I too, thought to be over the top. People need to have animal suffering shoved down their throats along with the dead pigs, cows and chickens they shove down there. Gloria Steinem said it a long time ago, that if humans don't learn to respect animals then how can men ever learn to respect women? Just because a creature is weaker or different than you doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be treated with respect and dignity like all living things. A lesson we should all learn.

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

» Women and animals Posted by: gp
» Huh? Posted by: mstenger
» RE: Huh? Posted by: gp
Slavery was ok
Posted by: Imran on Oct 5, 2005 2:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When slavery was "legal" many of the "liberal" equivalents at the time just sat their passively and let slaveowners exercise their "right" to own slaves. This was the case in America in pre-emancipation and throughout all history.

Now, looking back how can anyone JUSTIFY anyone sitting by and letting people be dehumanized? Just because people didn't wake up to the evil being commited right under their nose, did that mean those who woke up shouldn't vehemently oppose the crime????

Animal slavery today is the equivalent of African slavery in the USA.
Any progressive should know that just because it is the norm doesn't mean it is ok.

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

» Animals = Animals? Posted by: Queervegan
gp = ?
Posted by: mstenger on Oct 5, 2005 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gp = Gomer Pyle!

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

Great article, PETA is an excellent organization
Posted by: ECtek on Oct 5, 2005 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for writing this article. Most people can't get past the knee-jerk reaction of PETA's simple mission to promote compassion for animals. It is great to see someone take a more thoughtful and insightful look. Their web site www.peta.org is a great resource for people who want to do something positive with their lives.

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

but you mischaracterized Norfolk
Posted by: pturet on Oct 5, 2005 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article but I think you mischaracterized Norfolk. Downtown lies the gentrified "new South", of course surrounded by poverty, but no more or less racist than most other towns of this size. Ask my black (er, African-American) coworkers who've migrated back here from the paradises of the north like Pittsburgh or Bed-Sty. What I think distinguishes Norfolk (and its twin city Virginia Beach) is that they're the loci of "true believers", from the Edgar Cayce crowd, to Pat Robertson, and of course PETA. Whatever their tactics, I see them as having an essentially naive, ahistorical outlook on human interactions with the animal kingdom. They are exactly right on when they are talking about the gross abusive American meat industry which threatens to destroy the global ecosystem with every bite of a Big Mac. But this isn't good enough for the purists at PETA. I hope my friend who works at PETA doesn't read this.

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

PETA is a group of totalitarian nutbags, in my opinion
Posted by: snarej on Oct 5, 2005 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you engaging in this debate should pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" episode on PETA. I've seen both sides of the issue, and how anyone, ANYONE, regardless of their position on animal rights, could still support such an organization is beyond me. At the very least--it is an immensely hypocritical organization--someone else posted the number of animals it KILLs each year because they're so grossly incompetant at finding adoptive homes. Forget the sponsorship of terrorism, property destruction and shameless propaganda--tactics we'd decry if was used by the "other side" so to speak. WAKE UP people!!!

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

» Penn and Teller know all Posted by: Queervegan
Vegans and abortion?
Posted by: Poe on Oct 5, 2005 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons......and are pro-choice......could you be called a hypocrite?

I mean....if you change your whole attitude about the way you were brought up....the way you lived your life....your eating and buying habits....and you extol the virtue of all animal life.....even the air we breath......the water and soil....earth....I would think that you would value human life all the same....even in its early development....when cells begin to take on a human form.

Just wondering.

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

» RE: Vegans and abortion? Posted by: satyagirl
Extremists open up space for moderates
Posted by: evermind on Oct 5, 2005 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read a lot of the comments on this article. It's frustrating because people are fighting over animal rights here. That isn't the issue.

PETA, by being extreme in their tactics, and I mean extreme by the fact that they will do close to anything for press coverage, have done two things:

1) They've put animal rights on the map in every community they touch. That means communities in which nobody knew what a vegan is now has people who know what a vegan is.

2) They've opened up the spectrum for less extreme people to talk about the same issues. I know vegetarians who say, "I'm not militant like PETA, but did you know...." It doesn't matter if animal rights people distance themselves from PETA. In fact, it's great that they do, because there are people who will listen to them because they distance themselves from PETA.

I saw a sticker in the subway tonight that said, "The war on terror is a hoax -- 9/11 was an inside job." I thought it was great. If I agree with it, it's nice to see someone espousing my views. If I don't agree with it, it's something I have in common with a pro-Bush citizen and starts up a conversation about how wrong it is, but we get talking about how Bush's bombing of Iraq is wrong.

It's the little personal conversations with someone in common that get people to start thinking differently.

Be subversive. Go vegan. :)

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

PETA's methods are silly
Posted by: pjmax on Oct 6, 2005 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PETA's request to Yassir Arafat to stop using donkeys in bombings was just plain silly. What did it say? "We do not care about the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. The killing of Palistinian kids by Israeli soldiers doesn't matter to us. Palistinians can continue suicide bombings of Israeli civilians for all we care. The Israelis and Palistinians can keep killing each other until everybody is dead. Just don't bring donkeys into it.". This may have caught some headlines for a short while, but it also gave PETA's critics just the ammunition that they need to claim that animal rights activists care more about animals that about people. Sure, these shenanigans may catch the media's attention for a short while. But do they really change people's minds? Oh, it may draw a few people to PETA's website. But if these stunts are all people see about PETA and it's views, and for a lot of people it is, it's a hollow victory.
Okay, there are times when you do have to fight fire with fire, so to speak. But if you aren't carefull , you can burn yourself.

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

www.HelpinAnimals.com
Posted by: ECtek on Oct 6, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people will see through lies and false rumors spread by people who are paid by corporations to fight PETA. Anyone who want facts about how PETA helps animals can get them at www.HelpingAnimals.com.

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

» RE: www.HelpinAnimals.com Posted by: danshe
artisanbythelake
Posted by: artisanbythelake on Oct 6, 2005 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PETA is steadfast in it's goal and unswerving to politics or individual agendas. That is why it continues to make unprecedented progress in the animal rights arena while other not for profits flounder and fail. Anyone who follows the PETA news can easily catch on and catch up making immediate changes in their own lives and communities as well. If PETA is seen as a threat to some so be it-animal abusers need to feel as threatened as the animals who are tortured and needlessly killed daily.

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

Peta kills animals
Posted by: nadezhda on Oct 6, 2005 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PETA took the animals out of a shelter in Northeastern NC and killed them. That was sometime this past summer. They made such a big deal out of the facilities, and then that is what they did. That wasn't on a blog; it was in the local papers.
By the way, as a resident of Norfolk, I would like to know where your author was? "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..." Doesn't sound like Norfolk to me. The inaccuracy and prejudged description would lead me to wonder how accurate this report was.

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

» RE: Peta kills animals Posted by: danshe
RE: B.S.
Posted by: ECtek on Oct 7, 2005 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
where are all these dead people?

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

PETA is just another manifestation of a corrupt media culture
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Oct 7, 2005 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dittoheads and PETA activists are just flip sides of the same coin. Americans listen to whoever yells the loudest, and cranks and hypocrits from both the far left and far right have themselves a field day in a culture that values clever 5-second sound bites over indepth coverage. The result? A anti-intellectual political environment dominated by fringe elements who have neither common sense nor decency, just a talent for engaging the media. And speaking of the media, does anyone in the US ever read British or Canadian newspapers or listen to foreign broadcasts? What a difference in quality! PETA gets short shrift from these news services. Maybe if the American corporate media had the courage to cover issues that really matter, such as peak oil or the massive fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections, they wouldn't have the time to provide a free stage for PETA. Mainstream Media = A Weapon of Mass Distraction

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

and we've all done just what they want
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Oct 8, 2005 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each and every one of us. Look at all our comments. What press. I dunno--how do we translate this to say, ousting the right-wing government? I kinda like their marketing--hmm, in fact, it resembles what the righties have been doing all along.

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

Why aren't more progressives vegetarian?
Posted by: Plankton on Oct 8, 2005 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally am surprised by the number of progressives out there who aren't vegetarian. Food equality issues, health issues, and of course the single biggest thing (after never driving a car) you can do to help the environment (btw, 90% of soja goes to feeding animals--so don't post about how Tofu is destroying the amazon!)

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

At Least One Convert
Posted by: shoe on Oct 9, 2005 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In today's complex world of moral choices the ability to bring converts into the fold is a tremendous challenge.
I know with certainty that PETA and their use of graphic videos of animal cruelty brought at least one person into their fold...and for that I am extremely grateful.

Treat others as you would be treated. And if you won't, be prepared to pay the price of coming face to face with those who will.

We're Here, we don't eat Steers, and we're not going anywhere.
So get used to it.

Vegetarians do it with Love.

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

Geez there are some nuts posting comments here.
Posted by: may261989 on Oct 9, 2005 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got one genius saying that PETA is a terrorist organisation. Americans crack me up.. Too much Fox News Terror alerts for this one me thinks.

The whole point of the article was about the effectiveness of their campaign .. Of course this will bring out all the trolls who visits these sites and push the Bush "sheeple of America" agenda but I didnt realise there would be so many of them.

I for one think the PETA campaigns against the vulgar J-LO and the new campaign to against the equally ugly Elle Macpherson will have my full support..
Hopefully "the body" will be be made to pay for her vanity and disregard for other forms of life ( remember that Elle was one of the models who signed the petition against animal cruelty )

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

I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!!
Posted by: Hamp on Oct 14, 2005 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS ARTICLE SHOWS THE BRILLIANT, MISCHEIVIOUS EFFECTIVE PETA POLITICAL THEATRE -- AS EFFECTIVE AS HOFFMAN AND RUBIN THE YIPPIES THROWING DOLLAR BILLS ONTO THE STOCK MARKET FLOOR -- AND THIS WRITER GETS IT, AND SHARES IT WITH ALL THESE ZANY EXAMPLES. mORE POLITICAL STATEMENTS WOULD DO WELL TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AND NON-VIOLENT!!!

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

however
Posted by: salty on Apr 23, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i enjoyed the article, you put some time into it and made your point clear...

here is the however part: you mentioned that peta responds to comments or opinions which disagree with their pov with 'indifference', you also mention that certain reporters were hoodwinked and walked right into a a trap set by them... you think these reporters are clueless? absolutely not. i deal all the time with the approach of 'indifference', it's weak and does not allow for dialogue but i can't control others, i can't make them react the way i want... does this mean i should NOT say what i want to say? absolutely not.

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement