Are PETA Hypocrites?

Before I start this blog, let it be known that I hate PETA with a passion. I think they are hypocrites, so the whole point of this blog is to try and justify my opinion. Nevertheless, as always it's up to YOU to decide what you think about them. You may agree with me, I don't know.
----

So what IS PETA? To you and me, they're the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, in other words an animal rights group. Over the past decade or so, their name has become synonymous with the whole concept of animal rights; they promote veganism, denounce animal testing and abstain from any product derived from an animal. No doubt most of you will have been told that they are dedicated to saving animals through clever campaigns and raids on animal testing laboratories. When you take away this layer, which is essentially a very expensive and cosmetic PR campaign, you see that not all things are good in PETALand.

First of all, I think it would be worth taking a look at the head and guiding light of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk. According to Wikipedia, Newkirk (pictured right) is a British born vegan who's experiences in India concerning the abuse of animals in circuses helped shape her philosophy as it is today. While this seems like a noble enough reason to campaign for animal rights (and believe me, I don't have a problem with animal rights), one only has to take a look at her will to know that something is wrong.

2. While the final decision as to the use of my body remains with PETA, I make the following suggested directions:

a. That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed;

b. That my skin, or a portion thereof, be removed and made into leather products, such as purses, to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is “fabric” nor needed, and that some skin be tacked up outside the Indian Leather Fair each year to serve as a reminder of the government’s need to abate the suffering of Indian bullocks who, after a life of extreme and involuntary servitude, as I have seen firsthand, are exported all over the world in this form;

c. That in remembrance of the elephant-foot umbrella stands and tiger rugs I saw, as a child, offered for sale by merchants at Connaught Place in Delhi, my feet be removed and umbrella stands or other ornamentation be made from them, as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations;

d. That one of my eyes be removed, mounted, and delivered to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a reminder that PETA will continue to be watching the agency until it stops poisoning and torturing animals in useless and cruel experiments; that the other is to be used as PETA sees fit;

e. That my pointing finger be delivered to Kenneth Feld, owner of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, or to a circus museum to stand as the “Greatest Accusation on Earth” on behalf of the countless elephants, lions, tigers, bears, and other animals who have been kidnapped from their families and removed from their homelands in India, Thailand, Africa, and South America and deprived of all that is natural and pleasant to them, abused, and forced into involuntary servitude for the sake of cheap entertainment;

f. That my liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras;

g. That one of my ears be removed, mounted, and sent to the Canadian Parliament to assist them in hearing, for the first time perhaps, the screams of the seals, bears, raccoons, foxes, and minks bludgeoned, trapped, and sometimes skinned alive for their pelts; that the other ear be removed, preserved, and displayed outside the Deonar abattoir in Mumbai to remind all who do business there that the screams of the cattle who are slaughtered within its walls are heard around the world;

h. That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation;

i. That one of my thumbs be mounted in a downward position and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, has gone against the changing tide of societal opinion and frightened and hurt animals in some egregious manner;

j. That a little part of my heart be buried near the racetrack at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix;

k. That anything else be done with my body that PETA believes will serve to draw attention to and so abate the plight of exploited animals.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? To me, a will that expresses the wish to be turned into a parody of fast food when I pass on, is a sign of mental illness. One needs to question whether Newkirk is quite in her right mind. And as El Sid herself stated, "who the fuck would want one of her severed thumbs mounted on their desk?!" It's this kind of delusional behavior that shuns people away from the animal rights movement. People see the will on the PETA website and assume that it's fronted by a mental patient.

But that's not all I have to say about PETA, oh no. Next in line is the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" ads that they're so fond of. Again, it bases itself on a noble concept, the abolition of animal fur in clothing. Let's face it, we're in the 21st century now; polyester and artificial fabrics are cheap and easy to make. Sure, they wore skins back in the club-toting days, but they didn't have Ikea back then.
Again though, PETA have taken this concept and blown it out of the water. Take a look at this add:
Now, ask yourself, to whom does this ad seem marketed? Women? I doubt it. A bunch of lecherous men and sexually repressed teenagers? Likely. And at the end of the day, what does the viewer concentrate on the most; the message behind the ad or the fact that there's a naked woman on it? You tell me.

Possibly the most insulting part of PETA's entire campaign would have to be comparing the treatment of animals in mass-farming to holocaust victims. PETA states explicitly that

"like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."

While animals are perhaps mistreated in the mass farms, how on earth can anyone lack so much sense as to compare their treatment to that of holocaust victims in concentration camps? Believe me, there is a difference. For one, the concentration camps were specifically created to kill a large number of people, due to malicious intent from the Nazi regime. What is the aim of a farm? To provide food to a mass-consumer base. There is no emotion in a farm. None whatsoever.

And now for the finale, my friends. Did you know that PETA holds a policy on animal euthanasia? Our good old friend Newkirk tells us that

"Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants."

One has to question her dedication to animal rights. Why doesn't PETA take it upon themselves to find homes for these animals? Why kill them? There is no logic in this act whatsoever. And do the animals have a say? No, of course they don't. For an organization who prides themselves on the ethical treatment of animals, they sure enjoy having the last say. But instead, PETA blames people not spaying their animals. Well, fuck me.
One well known case of unnecessary euthanasia concerning animals was in 2005 when the police found over 80 animals had been euthanized and thrown in dumpsters. Among one of these animals was a cat and her kittens. According to veterinarian Patrick Proctor, who had seen the cats before their death, they were adoptable and the PETA employees had specifically stated that they would have no problem finding homes for them.

So are PETA destroying the credibility of the animal rights movement? Here's my slightly biased evidence. Don't be content just with what I've said, though. Look around the net, find out for yourself and make your own damn mind up. I'm just presenting my point of view.


Stay Sane,

Jay

Pointless Bickering

Pray, do tell. Is there any point whatsoever to the right and the left debating and trying to put each other down 24/7? They spend so much goddamn time trying to get one over on the other, that the real issues become obscured by the debate, exaggerated by the media; "Who is best, the liberal left or the wacky right?"
I've noticed this recently on a forum I frequent. Every topic seems to transform into a debate of whether the left is better than the right or vice-versa. Take, for example, a topic on the war in Iraq. One person comments that Bush should be tried for war crimes, and the more conservative members of said forum jump on him/her like rabid animals, shrieking "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT, SHOW ME PROOF!" Each camp effectively tries to undermine the image of the other, claiming each other to be childish. Alas, they don't stop to consider the fact that their pointless bickering makes them both come across as angsty five year olds.

This also applies to the political domain, though thankfully not as extreme. Still, instead of debating policies, why don't the right and the left try to find a solution that is mutually beneficial for all parties concerned, and especially the public? That way pretty much everyone is happy, right? Or wrong? In a world full of contradictions nothing is certain.

Peace

Coke steps up to the political mainframe

In September's edition of Private Eye, the magazine gave uncovered the latest debacle in the circus that is the House of Commons, whereupon Coca-Cola, longtime fighter of injustice paid for a meeting on 'corporate social responsibility'. This comes as a slight shock seeing as the Coca-Cola Company, which is as we all know a corporation, has had a long and checkered history when it comes to the social welfare of their employees and clients. After all, there is no trace of any health warnings on the Coke website as to the adverse effects of excessive consumption of their product, which includes high traces of caffeine and sugar, not to mention a massive variety of artificial colourings and flavours pumped into their soft drink. The caffeine in Coca Cola, when consumed excessively is thought possible to lead to caffeine dependancy for the consumer. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Coke contains a few ingredients used by the "orange" drink Sunny D, which can turn the consumer yellow if they drink too much.
Of course, the company aren't trying to promote excessive consumption of the drink, are they? Kids aren't pulled in by those bright adverts where the guy puts a nickel in the vending machine, and a whole new world springs to life inside the dispenser. That's what Coke seems to think at least.
Furthermore, Nestlé sponsored a meeting concerning obesity in children. The critical Nelson might find this overly hypocritical, as Nestlé's contributions to stopping childhood obesity include the Kit Kat bar and Cookie Crisp cereal, which is essentially chocolate chip cookies in a bowl with milk poured on them. Nestlé of course are well known for having publicly opposed Labour's scheme for "traffic light" food labels, which mark the product with a green, yellow or red light depending on the ingredients used, and the amount of E-numbers and chemicals pumped into the product. They also opposed the government's plan to limit junk-food adverts on prime-time TV.
This is of course the corporation without any scruples whatsoever. We all remember the baby milk controversy of the 70's don't we? This being the controversy where their special formula allegedly caused the deaths of fifteen infants, due to the result of the formula being mixed with contaminated water. The only problem is, a lot of this information has been slow getting out to people, since Nestlé have been involved in a long number of libel court cases against people who openly opposed their breast-milk substitute using the fifteen dead children as a thorougly justifiable example of how Nestlé don't give a shit about their clientelle if their Corporate interests are in the picture.

Back to Coca-Cola, and we know that way back when a few decades ago, cocaine was an active ingredient in their drink. Having said that, this was back in the day when Cocaine was a legal substance. Nevertheless, with the high amount of sugar, caffeine and coke in the drink, it gave the user an unbeatable high, therefore the company decided to market it as a health drink. This was bullshit, and they knew it. The health drink plot was simply a way to increase consumption, therefore people would drink it more often, leading to cocaine addiction amongst a plethora of other health problems.
Again, why did all this information come out late? Because the company, like Nestlé was involved in a long series of libel cases against people who argued that the drink held no health benefits whatsoever. This has been a common caracteristic of large food and drink corporations such as Coke and Nestlé whereupon they use intimidation and the like to beat the public into submission. While the fat-man at the top floor sits and pats his stomach, knowing he's got premium health service, his employees and consumers are struggling to make money, and are falling victim to health complications, because they've been fed lies by the corporation.
And at the heart of it all, who or what do we have to blame for this? Capitalism of course. It may be the only viable economic system out there (let's not forget that Stalin and Castro aren't true representatives of Communism, a system which has never made a true apparition in the economic market), but it's destroying public interests, as it's been twisted by the corporations whose only mantra is "Make a profit and screw everything else". Pay your workers pittance, try to dodge any and all inspections that might bring an end to production and wallow in your own greed like a pig in mud.

Stay sane,

Jay

Wave of Mutilation

Wanted:A "rogue state," needed by President Bush to justify spending $60 billion as the down payment on a National Missile Defense system.

How convenient for him that Russia is trying to re-establish itself as a new superpower, with Comrade Sta... I mean Putin implementing his new form of dictatorship.
It seems like the Alliance of Evil, that is to say the UK and the US, is more and more willing to plunge the world into another Cold War. What with the Litvinyenko radiation poisioning and the Russian bomber planes being intercepted in UK airspace, one can only sit and wonder how long it'll be before those itchy trigger fingers on both sides of the Iron Curtain slip up. These days, true power is dictated by the amount of missiles a country can produce in order to beat their neighbors into submission. We've seen time and time again that richer countries sell the poor countries shiny new ballistic missiles, only to invade them ten years later claiming they're a threat to world peace. But who sold them the weapons in the first place?
'Oh, shit, we forgot,' they scream hysterically, 'you can't get angry at us! We were simply protecting our foreign economic interests.'

But £60 billion dollars on a missile defense system? And a missile defense system that has every single chance of fucking up and leading to the downfall of a country, and the deaths of millions of innocent lives? Thank god that at least the system has been overhauled from the ancient 1950s model, where a counterattack stood a high chance of wiping incoming missiles from the radar, so that they could not be intercepted.
Now the army is using the Pathfinder missiles which carry a payload equal to the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima style atomic bombs. During the crucial phase of development, did anyone stop to think about what might go wrong? Say there's an error with one of the payloads, and it explodes in mid-air, spreading deadly radiation into the atmosphere, poisoning millions? The government might cover it up. "You're not sick... You're not sick... You're not sick..." and then, when it's too late... "Oh, you ARE sick. Sorry, there's nothing you can do except sit and wait. Here's a re-run of American Gladiators to take your mind off of things." Then, anarchy in the streets. What do you think would happen when a whole nation of people realizes they're all going to die and there's nothing that they can do about it? 'It's okay if I break into this house and rape this kid, I'm going to die anyway, I may as well get some enjoyment out of the process!' Society as we know it would crumble.

So why doesn't Bush try and use this $60 billion for a more practical purpose; one that excludes the senseless death of millions of people? Why not... Oh, I don't know... invest it in the financing and construction of community centers, a better health system or education or even strengthening foreign relations by donating a few billion to impoverished nations ruled by bloodthirsty dictators? Oh, wait... I forgot. He knows what's best for America, that's why he's the president. The country doesn't need a stable economy or a 100% literacy rate amongst adults. No, only evil communist countries like Cuba have those sorts of demographics. And the USA will never fall under such an oppressive, authoritarian Orwell-wet-dream government like Cuba.

Or will they?


Stay sane,

Jay

Bombs Away! The USA PATRIOT Act Has Come To Play!

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 is a government legislation in the US that was introduced by (surprise surprise) George Dubya, the latest monkey in the long line of fundamentalist Christians to take the throne. We've all heard of the Patriot Act, but hands up how many people actually knows what it permits the government to do?

First of all, looking at the title, one might think that Bush misunderstood what "USA" stands for. Instead of United States of America, he thought it meant Uniting and Strengthening America. Perhaps in his cocaine-binge heyday someone jokingly told him that's what USA stood for and he was dumb enough to believe it. Hey, weirder stuff has happened, right? 'But what are these Appropriate Tools?!' I hear you cry in confusion. Well, let's take a look, shall we?
One might say that 9/11 was a good thing for the government, in the sense that in the wake of these terrorist attacks on US soil, the government could pass through pretty much any legislation they wanted to, as long as they found some obscure link to the prevention of terrorism. Hell, this could have included a nationwide cull of all Muslims or people suspected of being Muslim (Nazi Germany, anyone?), all in the name of revenge, and kicking Mujah's ass in the name of Uncle Sam. We all drew out a sigh of relief when they didn't, however. Then we drew it back in again when the PATRIOT Act was proposed.
Essentially, the Patriot Act is one massive sham. It gives the government extended powers when it comes to surveillance on the American public. Yes, kids, that's right. You're not safe even in your own home! If the low-income discriminated minority doesn't kill you in your sleep and rape your kids, the Government will come and take you away for having said something un-patriotic. And don't think they wouldn't either.
Slowly but surely, the country's descending into an Orwellian nightmare. 1984-07, right on your doorstep. Speak out against the Patriot Act and you'll be arrested for "supporting terrorism". Oh yes, the government can do it. And legally too. Or at least that's what they want you to think.
And if they can't find proof, they'll make proof, and ship your ass to Guantanamo so fast that you won't be able to protest. Remember, it's not fascism when THEY do it. It's just democracy in disguise!

Back to the act itself. It's comprised of ten "titles", or agendas. They list as so:
In order to keep the masses happy, the government decided to throw a veil over everyone's eyes. The main point of the first Title being the condemnation and banning of discrimination against Muslims.
Now, while I think we can all agree (and if you don't, what the hell are you doing here?) that banning discrimination against any race or creed is a GOOD thing, we have to question the government's motives behind this legislation. It becomes more apparent as the Act goes forward that these laws in particular have been instated to satisfy the 'liberal' public, and in effect try to throw a veil over them so to speak. The government have so little confidence in the intelligence quotient of the average American that they're resorting to this cheap tactic to appease the masses. Well guess what. It didn't work, and the public realized that the Patriot Act was pure and utter BULLSHIT.
This, kids, is the one that hurts. Title II expands the moral and legal restraints imposed by the First Amendment and allows government bodies and organizations to further their surveillance on the public. This includes bugging electronic devices and homes. Oh, but the legislation insists that all this must be done without breaching the First Amendment. But who's going to notice if the CIA or the FBI place a little bug here, or a little one there? After all, they're supposed to be inconspicuous, aren't they?
If you're looking for further proof that the PATRIOT Act is simply an excuse to spy on us, look at Title IV. It would be decent, if not for the simple reasons that
A) The American Economy has grown semi-independent on the flux of illegal immigrants working in the US, since they do the jobs everyone else is too snooty to do
B) It hasn't actually done anything anyway, as there are illegal immigrants getting into the US on a daily basis. Border security is low, and the actual political border doesn't cover the geographical border, therefore there are massive holes in it, enabling illegal immigrants to get through.

All in all, it's the government's way of saying "fuck you" to the taxpayer. They're past caring about YOUR civil liberties; freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and choice are all dead in the black heart of AmeriKKKa.

Stay safe,

Jay

Not a red...but an orange revolution

From 2004-2005, there were a series of protests and demonstrations in the Ukraine which have been dubbed as "The Orange Revolution". This revolution was any leftists' dream in response to the unbelievable amount of political corruption, voter coercion and electoral fraud. The revolution mostly consisted of general civil disobedience, sit ins and general strikes. Ironically enough, the slogan for Viktor Yanukovych (the former president of the Ukraine) and his electoral campaign was 'Hope is good, confidence is better'. Seems his idea of confidence was the confidence he had in his chances of being able to pull off major electoral fraud.
The difference between the Orange Revolution and general anarchy was the fact that the majority of the demonstrations were peaceful, something which could be learned from, especially by the un-evolved mouth breathers who beat up random people, all in the name of Revolution. The government can't take forceful measures (as we've all seen in Burma more recently), for fear of an international backlash, so they really have no choice but to give in to the demands of Citizen Joe.
So two years on, and what's changed? Well, the Ukraine is currently in the middle of an election, and to many people's surprise, the democratic alliance of Viktor Yushchenko (the current president) and Yulia Tymoshenko are slightly ahead in the polls.

So this recent victory of Democracy over Deceit got me thinking. We need an Orange Revolution in the USA. I know that most Americans don't trust 'dem bastard Eastern European commies'(sic), but with more and more people calling to impeach Bush and his cronies, it could just work. Ideally, the best time to have started the revolution would have been after Bush got in the first time. Remember, he blatantly rigged the polls in order to get in. The question is, why was there no reaction? Were the American public content to simply sit in a field chewing cud all day, while their Supreme Leader, Rev. Dubya Bush ran things with an iron fist? Why the hell didn't people rise up and smash the government down through peaceful protest, civil mischief and demonstrations seen only in a Revolutionary's wet dream? If enough people simply refused to work, the economy would crumble, and the government would have no choice but to consider alternative options. Problems like this don't simply go away; you can't close your eyes and hope for it to get the message.
So why didn't people decide to take action? The answer all lies in the Kapitalist-Über-Alles society that America has become. It's the ultimate consumer society, and what do you need to consume? That's right, money. And you don't get paid if you go on strike. It seems people just can't live without their tabloids and their junk food. Alas, we've fallen into the age where creature comforts and Jerry Springer has taken over the need for democracy.

Take from this what you will. But at least try to consider the fact that maybe you CAN make a difference.

Stay safe,

Jay

Hey Kids! Join The Army And Become Vin Diesel!

The Army on both sides of the Atlantic are going to great lengths to try and recruit the youngsters living in the UK and US. One of their many tactics includes a set of adverts on the television, whose goal is to gloss over the experience of open-air combat, so much so that fighting in the Army turns into Duke Nukem instead of a matter of life or death.

The UK army seems to be one of the major culprits here. One advert consists of a platoon launching a spy-plane, and then using an X-Box controller to pilot it. Oh, yes. It's true.
'Don't worry kids, we'll give you the cheat code for God Mode!' the adverts seem to scream. You can die, though. Don't forget that. A bullet to the head makes all the difference, but they're not willing to tell you that. Their macho insecurity forbids them from questioning the idea that they can win every war they get into. Even when it looks like they're losing.