PETA Loses Relevance – Again

It is a noble and worthwhile endeavor to fight against abuse of animals, and making people aware of such abuse through media attention makes sense. However, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), made her organization appear foolish once again by picking the wrong battle to fight in the quest for public awareness.

A video of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie smashing a spider on his desk prompted Newkirk to take a stand on behalf of PETA by chastising Christie for such a thoughtless act. Spiders are feared, loathed, and not considered animals by most people. Saving them from abuse, death, or even extinction will never be a priority for many. It is highly doubtful that PETA gained respect, or donations, by championing spiders.

PETA has always taken the approach that any press is good press and has gone over-the-top many times in its thirst for publicity. Appearing foolish not only does not faze PETA, it often seems to be a goal. Nudity, always an attention-getter, has been a staple in PETA’s publicity campaigns, but it hasn’t given PETA the mature image that such an organization needs to be taken seriously.

If it’s just attention PETA wants, why stop at Christie’s killing of a spider or Obama’s swatting (“executing”) a fly? Head lice are being massacred daily; fleas are routinely eradicated; and ticks get no respect whatsoever – and shouldn’t PETA be preparing a massive publicity campaign on behalf of the billion cicadas soon to make an appearance?

David J. Hentosh

PETA Sues for Whale Rights

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller is now reviewing a case in a California district court brought by PETA on behalf of five whales currently “enslaved” at SeaWorld. The judge is to determine whether or not the whales are protected under the 13^th Amendment and share the same rights as people.

PETA’s mission to protect animals is admirable. However, PETA’s zeal often goes over-the-top and loses public support as a result. Publicity stunts, particularly the nude ones, certainly bring attention to PETA, but too often the attention is on the silliness of the stunts rather than the cause. This court case on behalf of the whales is no exception.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the 13^th Amendment, or any Amendment, was written with animals in mind. Trying to interpret it in this manner is nothing less than a distortion of original intent and, if successful, will become a Pandora’s Box of future lawsuits and inanities.

Consider the consequences should PITA win this lawsuit (not impossible in this strange land). There would be no reason at all to stop with whales (which would be discriminatory); therefore, all animals would quickly be granted the same “rights”. Rights bring responsibilities, a fact largely ignored by those who usually demand rights.

Responsibilities, at the very least, require one to respect and follow rules, laws, and traditions of the society granting those “rights”. Animals would then be expected to wear clothes (or at least cover their genitals in public), pay taxes, earn a living, vote, refrain from urinating or defecating in the street, purchase health insurance, not eat or abandon their babies, fornicate in private, not discriminate against other species, etc. etc.

It is true that there are people who routinely break or ignore all or many of the above-mentioned examples. Interestingly enough, those people are often called “animals” for doing so. We would, of course, have to coin a new word for them because calling them “animals” would become a hate crime.

David J. Hentosh

UPDATE: Case dismissed by Judge.

Science On Trial in Italy – Dangerous Precedent

Several Italian scientists are now on trial for manslaughter for failing to predict a 2009 earthquake that killed more than 300 people. They met six days prior to the earthquake to analyze data of tremors and concluded that the tremors were not a prelude to a major earthquake. They were wrong and are now being prosecuted.

Criminalizing a wrong “prediction” sets a dangerous and far-reaching precedent. Scientists, certainly, will feel the brunt of such a legal maneuver and will quickly learn to keep findings of any value to themselves. This would slow technical progress and reduce the benefits to society that science has been delivering for years.  More dangerous, however, is the impact this could have on society as a whole.

How long would it be before weathermen are sued for not predicting a thunderstorm, tornado, or flash flood? The very act of being a weatherman would be cause for a lawsuit because it entails predicting the weather. Weather channels would consist only of a TV camera pointed outside for you to make up your own mind about the weather.

Al Gore should certainly be shaking in his boots over this. He has been predicting climate doom for years now and the fact that NY City is not under water is cause for prosecution of him along with many other climate alarmists. Even polar bears would have a case to make (with help from PETA lawyers) for having had to re-locate ahead of predicted melting ice caps.

Investment counselors would be no more and Wall Street would change dramatically. Crystal balls and Tarot cards would be considered illegal paraphernalia and horoscopes would disappear from newspapers. Even the clergy would have sermons vetted to remove promises they cannot deliver. Mothers would be subject to legal action for telling children their noses will grow if they tell lies. Waiting for Santa Claus would have children calling lawyers in the morning. The impact of this foolishness knows no bounds.

Perhaps, though, there is a silver lining in this ominous cloud. Politicians would be forced to tell the truth and not make promises they can’t keep. Wouldn’t that be something?

David J. Hentosh

Iran is in Serious Trouble Now

Iran has gotten away with a lot because of the timidity of world leaders. However, the line may have finally been crossed with Iran’s recent proposed bill to criminalize dog ownership. This is sure to rattle the cage of PETA, not known for timidity, and bring hellfire upon the heads of state of Iran.

Perhaps porn star Jenna Jameson, who has appeared in several PETA ads, will be one of the boots on the ground in the PETA invasion sure to come. It will be interesting to see Iran’s reaction when she shows up wearing only boots. She is sure to be accompanied by an entire platoon of nude to semi-nude women who have appeared in many of PETA’s provocative ads.

Iran could be in for a sharp dose of twenty-first century shock and awe from the real experts. Neglecting human rights, killing political prisoners, developing nuclear weapons, and abusing women is one thing, but maltreating pets will not be tolerated. A sleeping giant has been awakened and PETA’s kittens could turn Iran into one giant litter box.

Hide any leather burkas you may have, Iran, because PETA seriously backs the underdog – or any dog – and they are surely coming. The bare truth may set you free.

David J. Hentosh

The Michael Vick Saga

There is no need to explain the circumstances surrounding Michael Vick because this story has been growing like a forest fire in a strong wind. The latest, and most inane, comment on Vick that fueled the fire of this saga came from Tucker Carlson, a TV talking head, who said that Vick should have been executed for torturing and killing dogs. Stupidity gets headlines, especially when treated seriously, and Tucker’s comment fell deeply into the lake of stupidity.

Unfortunately, there are many who agree with Tucker’s assessment and it is stunning how deeply people feel about this. In a society that idolizes a known mass murderer such as Che Guevara by proudly displaying his image on T-shirts (especially on college campuses where it is almost mandatory attire), it is rather strange that Vick has been singled out to be demonized.

Our own government refuses to demonize mass-murdering terrorists, preferring to bring them up on criminal charges in civilian courts rather than military tribunals. In fact, one of those terrorists just beat the civilian system, acquitted on almost all charges because of civilian trial loopholes. He has not been despised nearly as much as Vick has been.

Much of the rage against Vick is on a very personal level, but it is misguided. If one believes that Vick got off easy, it is the ‘system’ that is at fault, not Vick. After all, Vick served the time given to him by the system and then proceeded to get his life back on track. Was he expected to ask for more prison time or roll over and fall into a depressed alcoholic stupor living off the dole?

The Philadelphia Eagles have also come under severe criticism for giving Vick a second chance even though it has become an American tradition to do so. We are famously known for rooting for the underdog (no pun intended) and a rapist such as Roman Polanski can get a pass as long as his work is admired. Vick’s athletic ability seems to have incensed people further rather than elicit sympathy and it seems he, and everyone else, was expected to ignore it.

Cruelty to animals is disgusting. So, too, is cruelty to people. Perhaps a more rational and consistent perspective is needed on both.

David J. Hentosh

Going to the Dogs

Proposals to overhaul dog laws being considered in England and Wales include a costly and mandatory competence test for dog owners to prove they can handle their pet (http://tinyurl.com/yknafw8). Owners would also be forced to buy insurance in case their dog attacks someone and have a microchip with owner information inserted into their dog.

The proposals being considered are a result of an increase in both attacks by dogs and ownership of ‘status’ dogs that intimidate or threaten others. It is expected that there will be heavy resistance to these laws on the basis that responsible owners of all types of dogs would end up paying the costs, thereby, being penalized, while irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs would just ignore the laws.

One can expect PETA members to get into the fray and find themselves in a conundrum over these laws. On the one hand they will certainly applaud laws that require responsible ownership of any animal. On the other hand, they have argued in the past that no one can really “own” a dog and forcing a dog to have a microchip implanted without consent infringes on the dog’s rights.

If it is found that a competence test for dog ownership is appropriate, perhaps it will spark a cry for a competence test before allowing couples to have children. After all, any woman (along with the father) can get pregnant and have a baby at any time without proving to be responsible enough to bring a child into the world. Insurance is not always mandatory for that child and proof of ability to feed, clothe and shelter that child is not legislated beforehand.

In fact, dogs are often treated much better than children in the same family. If, indeed, responsibility can be legislatively mandated, responsibility for children should be enforced before making dogs an overly-protected species with more rights than children often have. Perhaps the widely held notion that society is going to the dogs is, unfortunately, slowly becoming literally correct.

David J. Hentosh

Peta Pressure

On the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) website, Logan Scherer suggests that Punxsutawney Phil, the famous Pennsylvania groundhog, should be replaced by an electronic groundhog (http://tinyurl.com/yjl7xtk). She considers the light-hearted, 123-yr-old American tradition to be inhumane treatment and believes a robot should replace Phil.

Her accusation is that the groundhog “…is denied the ability to prepare for and enter yearly hibernation…Add to that the displeasure of large, screaming crowds, flashing lights of cameras, and human handling.” If flashing lights, crowds and cameras are inhumane, perhaps she should turn her concern to the inhumane treatment of Sarah Palin.

PETA has been reverting to more shocking tactics in recent years such as a recent poster featuring the picture of a child killer to show that animal abusers are violent to people (http://tinyurl.com/yl3hs38). Even though the poster has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority, it provoked enough controversy to bring much attention to PETA. As they say: “There is no such thing as bad press”.

The Neumann University Alumni Association in Delaware County was pressured by PETA and is stopping its promotion of selling discounted tickets to the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus as a result (http://tinyurl.com/ya5kza9). Pressure works, but PETA members sometimes cross the line and break laws (put in place to protect humans) in their zeal. PETA also donates money to other animal rights organizations that have been classified as “domestic terrorists” by the FBI (http://tinyurl.com/yhrt6ku) and does not discourage that illegal activity.

Many actions and stances taken by PETA, such as the groundhog robot, are viewed by the public as ridiculous or amusing. However, there is a danger of being lulled into thinking that PETA is harmless. Aggressive tactics from any group with fanatics is a danger and PETA is no exception. Increasing aggressiveness from PETA could indicate that the inmates are beginning to run the asylum.

David J. Hentosh