PETA: There's More Than One Way to Skin a Cat...But...

PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Translation: Crazy Animals’ Rights Advocates

I realize this may be a sensitive topic with some, considering that most people find animals endearing in some way. I remember crying when my goldfish died and we had to flush it down the toilet.

I’m not writing this to debate Animal Rights. I think animals are great, pets are great to have*…so while it may not be on my “Top 10 List of Reasons Why the World is Going to Hell in a Handbasket,” protesting the cruelty of animals--part of what PETA does--is reasonable enough to me.

I do believe, however, that PETA is undermining itself with its own idiotic and absurd tactics. So much so, that a former PETA employee declared that: “Many of us [activists] believe that the further we distance ourselves from PETA, the better off the animal rights movement will be” (see quote). I’ve read reports of them financing criminal activists and supporting violence against various animal labs, research facilities, and things of the sort.

Honestly, I can’t speak to any of those because I didn’t do enough research. Anybody sitting at a desk with time on their hands who wants to hash it out for me is more than welcome. I say that PETA has committed some serious blunders which have, in my opinion, done more damage to their cause than help. They prevent me from taking them seriously; in other words, they've shot their own horse out from under themselves, clipped their own wings before they were able to take flight, ________ (for added irony and humor, feel free to insert any cliched phrase for self-sabotage involving an animal). I guess what I’m trying to say is is that PETA as an organization appears to currently be run on the raging hormones and teenage angst of a 15-year old boy, as evidenced by their ad campaigns and letters.

Regarding campaigns, there have been extensive ads that employ Pamela Anderson as a spokesperson, not to mention other vulgar tactics that basically, without going into details, objectify women. I’m sure Pamela Anderson believes in the cause, and she certainly draws attention to the cause with her public support. But let’s be honest: Does the demographic that she appeals to seem likely to turn that attention into support for the cause? Here’s where I believe those raging hormones are blocking rationality.

Now for the letters and other public statements. I saw one read on CNN the other day that I wish I could recall, but the best I could find was a recent letter to Michael Moore (click here to read), in which PETA told him: “there’s an elephant in the room, and it is you. With all due respect, no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you personally.” Now, I am no fan of Michael Moore, nor am I denying that he is overweight. But is this a way to garner support? Other letters and public statements are no better; they just end up making PETA come across as an immature, mentally-stunted 15-year old buffoon (wait...would PETA take that as an insult or as a compliment? That’s probably debatable) that resorts to petty insults and language to convey their point.

Someone may argue that my blog reads like I’m the immature, sarcastic jerk. I won’t deny that. The difference between me and PETA (oh man…there had better be more than one), however, is that while I write for fun and hopefully to get a laugh out of some friends, they want to be taken seriously by an international community. But I guess I’m beating a dead hors--wait, I guess I shouldn’t use that expression, either…

*NOTE: I do realize that animal rights’ entails that they shouldn’t even be held as pets, but…