This post is about animal cruelty and the hypocrisy of those who claim to 'fight' it. I'm referring, as made obvious by the post title, to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - more about them later) and its associate organizations' behavior during the recent matter of a certain football player (Michael Vick) and his running a dog-fighting arena. A matter they seem to be completely ignoring.
In the past, I have heard PETA referred to as a bunch of terrorists who go around wreaking havoc, throwing mud on people wearing furs and leather, and causing damage to laboratories.
Apparently, the cruelty of animal testing and the fur/leather industry mean more than the cruelty of training dogs in to viciousness, then setting them loose on each other in a small ring. Those animals are then bet upon, as to which one will win. The loser is killed. I have heard of dogs being put to sleep, shot, or beaten to death.
It's horrific, and for some reason we haven't heard a single word out of PETA during the entire matter. Some of the media is making a hue and cry about Vick's behavior, but not a peep out of an organization that claims to dedicate itself to the preservation of animal lives, and the discouragement of animal cruelty.
Turning a blind eye to this doesn't say much for PETA. I hope I get some responses to this post, because I really want to see if anyone out there knows where PETA and their sanctimonious behavior are when these animals need (and deserve) some champions. No, they aren't having tests performed on them, no, they're not being skinned and turned in to coats, gloves, hats and shoes, but they should be receiving the same protection as the animals that are.
I guess they don't think throwing animal blood on a football player will make as much a difference for their cause as doing it to a scientist or a clothing manufacturer. Too bad for the dogs… they apparently don’t matter.
30 July 2007
Getting Away with it All...
Reasonable limits...
People keep talking about those, and then they only apply them when they feel they are necessary - only when they apply to the cases that they want them to apply to.
Case in point: an article from the NY Times I saw on AOL recently. It was about a
(man I consider a)dirtbag who's been posting pictures (fully clothed, but still inappropriate, considering what accompanies them) of young children on his web site. A site that was shut down recently by its host, but that he plans to restart the function of with a foreign host. Dutch, I believe.
This is the first time I've seen a Californian Liberal (in recent history) complain about a child-related pervert. Most of the time they claim that we're either violating the rights of those animals or that we're falsely accusing them. No matter what our reasons are, they say, we have no right to protest their actions.
Suddenly, now that they are being directly affected, it's become an important issue to them. When it involves East Coast parties, then it is acceptable to claim that the police have 'falsely accused' the parties involved - and when a man like this starts doing online postings about 'trolling' for children on the West Coast, it is 'unacceptable' and 'inappropriate'.
Make up your minds, folks. Either do what's right and support all the kids, or support the people who damage our children in the name of their own pleasure.
People keep talking about those, and then they only apply them when they feel they are necessary - only when they apply to the cases that they want them to apply to.
Case in point: an article from the NY Times I saw on AOL recently. It was about a
(man I consider a)dirtbag who's been posting pictures (fully clothed, but still inappropriate, considering what accompanies them) of young children on his web site. A site that was shut down recently by its host, but that he plans to restart the function of with a foreign host. Dutch, I believe.
This is the first time I've seen a Californian Liberal (in recent history) complain about a child-related pervert. Most of the time they claim that we're either violating the rights of those animals or that we're falsely accusing them. No matter what our reasons are, they say, we have no right to protest their actions.
Suddenly, now that they are being directly affected, it's become an important issue to them. When it involves East Coast parties, then it is acceptable to claim that the police have 'falsely accused' the parties involved - and when a man like this starts doing online postings about 'trolling' for children on the West Coast, it is 'unacceptable' and 'inappropriate'.
Make up your minds, folks. Either do what's right and support all the kids, or support the people who damage our children in the name of their own pleasure.
17 July 2007
Dog Fighting...
I just heard a story on one of the radio shows about how an NFL player's being held responsible (we'll see if it actually happens or not) for his involvement in some illegal dog fighting on his property. That, when it comes down to it, as terrible as it is that it happened, important as it is that it be stopped, is not the main matter at hand here, however.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's heard of PETA - People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're a wild bunch - none too nice, and certainly viscious when it comes to their beliefs. They will go to seemingly any lengths for the protection of those animals... and indeed in the past they've gone to almost rediculous lengths to get their point across.
Tonight, though, I have to say I agree with one of Mark Levin's callers. He spoke of how similar deeds as were being done to those poor canines were being undertaken in Iraqi prisons before the United States went in to the country and dealt with the monster formerly called Saddam Hussein.
Simply enough, all the time I hear people screaming about how we need to treat ANIMALS more fairly... I have one question for them: Where are you when PEOPLE are being tortured in a similar fashion?
These are the same people who support the 'Libs and say that Republicans/Conservatives are 'Monsters'. It's such hypocrisy that they say these things, and then when the time comes to step up behind their beliefs and support them for a creature that we do not consider an 'animal' (e.g., a cat, dog or rabbit), such as a man or woman being held captive, they are NOWHERE to be seen!
Hypocrisy DOES love to run in packs, doesn't it, now?
I know they (referring to the aforementioned 'libs (liberals) probably won't be willing to listen, and even if they do, the chances are that they will say I'm being 'rediculous', or 'unfair'.
Very unfair that I think we should grant our own kind the same fair treatment that so many (including myself) feel that animals of all sorts deserve, no?
Where are the ethics of it, my friends, if we won't give our own kind the same respect we give other species?
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's heard of PETA - People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're a wild bunch - none too nice, and certainly viscious when it comes to their beliefs. They will go to seemingly any lengths for the protection of those animals... and indeed in the past they've gone to almost rediculous lengths to get their point across.
Tonight, though, I have to say I agree with one of Mark Levin's callers. He spoke of how similar deeds as were being done to those poor canines were being undertaken in Iraqi prisons before the United States went in to the country and dealt with the monster formerly called Saddam Hussein.
Simply enough, all the time I hear people screaming about how we need to treat ANIMALS more fairly... I have one question for them: Where are you when PEOPLE are being tortured in a similar fashion?
These are the same people who support the 'Libs and say that Republicans/Conservatives are 'Monsters'. It's such hypocrisy that they say these things, and then when the time comes to step up behind their beliefs and support them for a creature that we do not consider an 'animal' (e.g., a cat, dog or rabbit), such as a man or woman being held captive, they are NOWHERE to be seen!
Hypocrisy DOES love to run in packs, doesn't it, now?
I know they (referring to the aforementioned 'libs (liberals) probably won't be willing to listen, and even if they do, the chances are that they will say I'm being 'rediculous', or 'unfair'.
Very unfair that I think we should grant our own kind the same fair treatment that so many (including myself) feel that animals of all sorts deserve, no?
Where are the ethics of it, my friends, if we won't give our own kind the same respect we give other species?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)