PETA: People Evolving Toward Assininity, Part Two

PETA: People Evolving Toward Assininity, Part Two

I admit that I don’t personally know many PETA people. One old acquaintance admitted PETA membership but couldn’t explain why she is a member. My barberette conceded PETAN sympathies and used Havaheart traps for a rodent issue until she realized she was simply spreading disease by re-locating what the Pied Piper of Hamlin did.

As noted in Part One, (http://bit.ly/ng9aR2), the mission statement of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals omits all reference to that animal designed to be the ruler of the animal pack, the animal intended by God to be at the top of the food chain, the only animal infused with an immortal soul, the human animal.

In lieu of concerns for humanity, PETA concentrates on saving and protecting lower and higher species in both the insect and animal worlds, from fleas to rats to poultry to wild birds to fish to baby seals to horses to sheep and all others in-between. It does allow for humane insect control and doesn’t seem to like backyard dogs very much since they tend to eat fleas, chickens, wild birds, and even sheep if they’re hungry enough.

According to its website, PETA primarily focuses “on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry.” http://bit.ly/9tndVi

That’s all very commendable and there is evidence that cruelty exists in those industries which should be prevented. However, in advocating on behalf of those animals PETA loses sight of people who greatly benefit from animal experimentation, for example, and the millions employed in those industries which PETA would shut down if it had its way.

Furthermore, for all its self-righteousness, that organization regularly engages in unconscionable excesses beyond warning that feeding meat to children is tantamount to child abuse and other outrages.

In Part One, I also noted that PETA people, with good reason, never directly proclaim that gnats, minnows, turkeys, possums, cows, et al. are equal in importance to human beings or that the many species of beasties that inhabit the planet hold equivalent planetary status to people.

PETA doesn’t say that because PETANs regard mosquitos, etc. as far superior to the human animal. They don’t hate, they don’t murder, riot, or commit mayhem and they don’t backbite, hold grudges, or vote although they often spread disease and their higher-up cousins have been known to maim and devour innocent people.

Despite its mission, PETA and its employees have also been exposed as hypocrites on a number of occasions.

In one of many instances, employees were indicted for animal cruelty and committing heinous–grossly unethical–acts of animal insensitivity. They have been accused of needlessly and surreptitiously euthanizing hundreds of animals, in at least one case because the workers reportedly wanted to party on New Year’s Eve.

See some of the horror stories at http://bit.ly/qmG9ey

The Sun News Network is reporting that PETA is spreading its wings–and other body parts–to encompass, one could say seduce, a wider audience. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5267)

The Skinny on "Skins"

The Skinny on "Skins"

I recall visiting England in 1978. Even then, although located only about 3,500 miles to our east, England was light years ahead of the United States in terms of its oh-so- advanced, progressive culture.

As “All in the Family,” based on a Brit sitcom, was nearing the end of its run here after years of controversy over the show’s then-shocking sex references and such never-before-heard sounds on television as Archie flushing an upstairs toilet, Britain’s BBC featured what would have shocked the socks off American TV censors, full-frontal nudity.

Today we have another export from across the Pond which is anything but a sitcom, the award-winning–in Britain which loves conferring awards–teen drama, ”Skins.” That telly gem gave birth this month to the Viacom-MTV series of the same name which deals with similar themes of teenage angst in the twenty-first century.

Both the Brit and American “Skins” are a far cry from “Ozzie and Harriet” or even “Friends.” The website for the U.S. version, http://www.skins.tv/, gives a bare inkling as to the essence of the show although it does clearly demonstrate the meaning of the title. “Skins” features lots of skin, teenage skin.

The 5 episodes of Series One include dysfunctional characters aged 15-19 involved with and engaged in everything from a few common and normal situations to significantly dysfunctional interests and activities.

Eating disorders, violence, illicit drugs, alcohol, hallucinations, abandonment, divorce, suicide, over-dosing, masturbation, sexual assault and seduction earned “Skins” an TV-MA rating. Dollops of underage nudity were added to insure that enough young people would ignore that restriction and tune in to make “Skins” a hit.

It’s that nudity, child pornography, set to air January 31st in the third episode, which will insure the show will bomb in its American venue. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3482)