Based on what I have seen, that’s their traditional MO.
Of course, any lab dealing with major gene-engineered viruses and bacteria that had security crappy enough to let ALF guys in(and no apparent containment system) kinda deserves whatever they get…
Never mind the minks killing and maiming other, native animals–they are related to weasels and ferrets after all–as often happens when a species is inappropriately released into the wild. ITA on what everyone else has said here.
mmm…eggs.
Wow, Peta, your actions led to this thread, which made me think of eggs! That sure was effective!
I think I’ll grab me a bacon cheeseburger tomorrow for lunch.
Lets make it meat for every meal! A full English breakfast (bacon, sausages…), a nice tasty burger and fries for lunch, and sausages and chips (err, fries) in the evening. Yum!
That’s all right - she won’t swallow anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
As I gaze longingly on the spit-roasted-over-wood-fire whole pig, while snacking on pork rinds and spicy blood sausage (morcillas) and sipping on a cup of coconut-flavored nog with milk and eggs, this afternoon at the big workplace Xmas party, I shall think of PETA and all will be right with the world. Heh.
Okay. PETA sucks, granted. But isn’t the joke about how “PETA inspires me to eat meat!” wearing a wee bit thin/
People Eating Tasty Animals was funny ten years ago. The joke is trite now. Make a new one.
Daniel
these folks are just a bunch of criminals.
From the link:
“PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.”
I am overwhelmed by their compassion. Where do I sign up?
Interesting link, The Face. However, I’m skeptical of the information it contains. I also read their review of The Humane Society of the United States, and they drastically misrepresent that organization, as follows:
Looking at [url=http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/3848.htm]Charity Navigator’s report[/ur] on HSUS, I see that it actually got the second-highest rating of the five largest national animal welfare organizations. That may not mean a lot, and I couldn’t figure out how they determined the ratings for different organizations, but it is interesting.
Given activistcash’s smear of what I know is a good, effective, sensible organzation, I’m taking their report on PETA with a massive grain of salt. They look to me like a very pro-business, anti-activist website with far more of a hidden agenda than many of the groups they attack.
Daniel
Some of what that site says about PETA has been corroborated by other sites, sometimes with Newkirk’s own words.
What you say is true, Jeff Olsen . Some of the claims on that site are corroborated on other sites. But Daniel has a good point, too. I was specifically incensed at the claim that PETA opposes guide dogs for the blind. However, after Daniel’s post, I spent some time searching the PETA site and googling the Web, and I couldn’t find a single, reputable, first-hand source to support that claim. If someone can find a good cite, I’d love to see it.
This is not to say that I’m not outraged at all the other PETA nonsense and evil detailed in the previous posts, but to oppose assistance animals that can greatly improve the quality of life for some people just raises my blood pressure to dangerous levels.
I agree, Jeff, and simply because a claim about PETA appears on this website is no reason to dismiss the claim. My point is that this website is unreliable, given their distortions of HSUS; they are clearly willing to misrepresent organizations, and therefore are not a good source of information.
(And I want to be clear that I’m not attacking Mayfield for citing them: they look authoritative, and many of their claimsa bout PETA are undoubtedly true. I just don’t trust them as a source of new information about any organization).
Daniel
Then use them as a springboard to search elsewhere. For example:
ActivistCash says Newkirk was involved in an ALF arson at Michigan State University. I haven’t found a direct connection between Newkirk and the arson but the AP says PETA paid the accused arsonist’s legal fees.
Best I can do is an Observer article.
From an article profiling Ingrid Newkirk in New Yorker magazine in April 2003:
“She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as ‘servants’ and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.”
Whoops! Beaten to the punch!
Jeff, sure, that’s a fine approach. FWIW, I have no problem with the activist-shareholder method; I think it’s a great idea. The latter two examples are, of course, despicable.
We may similarly use PETA’s website as a springboard to investigate abuses in the farming industry; that doesn’t mean that their website is remotely reliable.
CNN, on the other hand, is fairly reliable: cite me something there, and I’ll take it at face value until I see strong evidence that I shuldn’t do so. That’s the difference I’m pointing at between reliable websites and activistcash.com.
Daniel
I’ll also note that, while activistcash nails PETA on its financials, they seem a little off-base here. Give.org, AFAIK the most reliable site for investigating charities, faults PETA for two things: their board of directors is too small (three members instead of the minimum 5 recommended by give.org), and they don’t tell the percentage of proceeds from items sold through Animal Times that will go toward their programs. Other than that, give.org found PETA passed all their tests.
If you want to find out about charities from an unbiased source, don’t turn to activistcash.com. That’s all I’m saying.
Daniel