Robert Ripley made his fortune with “Ripley’s Believe It or Not,” a newspaper and later a radio and television series which featured freaks and other oddities he presented as facts to be marvelled at by the public. The following news items may not measure up to Ripley’s weird standards but they are almost equally bizarre.
BURNING BODIES TO HEAT SWIMMING POOLS: In very liberal England, Brits hate waste and have hit upon a unique if offensive method to utilize the dead and, at the same time, to conserve energy and provide comfort to swimmers.
In a ghoulish, green proposal, Sir George Young suggested the 800 degree heat generated by crematoria be used to heat swimming pools and said he would “die a happier man” if he knew his cremation warmed a local pool.
That brilliant idea isn’t too far removed from the governmental practice of using human bodies as nutritional sustenance in the movie “Soylent Green.” Rumors that the Brits will turn to burning people alive for warmth if they run out of dead people are unconfirmed.
PETA KILLS MOST OF THE ANIMALS IT SAVES: The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals bills itself as the pre-eminent savior of all non-human animals and defends animal rights while remaining mute on ethically treating pre-born human beings.
PETA has often engaged in outrageous public displays of its disapproval of wearing clothing made from animal fur yet, when it is “protecting” animals, PETA executes more than 95% of them.
According to documents released by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed virtually all the animals it was caring for last year including 1,911 cats and dogs and, since 1998, has killed more than 27,000 animals at its Norfolk headquarters alone.
I suppose PETA can defend its actions on the basis that it is saving some of the animals from being eaten in Chinese restaurants. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15269.)
Showing posts with label peta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peta. Show all posts
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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)
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)
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Chickies vs. Babies
I’d like to say that I’m bemused at stories of animal cruelty but such stories are abhorrent to me and so bemusement is not an option.
Nevertheless, I’m always entertained by the writers and producers of animal cruelty tales and videos and by groups such as PETA who get livid over videos like this on chicken farmers who apparently routinely grind up millions of live male chicks because they are useless: http://tinyurl.com/nzu9oj.
It’s a pretty ugly sight whether one is an animal lover or not. Causing such excruciating pain to any living creature has to warp the minds of the perpetrators who tell themselves it is instant euthanasia.
No doubt many women’s libbers delight in the poetic justice of any male being chopped and diced but I think it’s nothing short of disgustingly brutal even if male chicks are not economically viable: They can’t lay eggs and don’t fatten up fast enough.
We usually think of pictures like these when we think chicken:
There’s more to a chicken than meets the eye or the palate.
On the other hand, we don’t consume human babies–yet–but we have the more popular practice of abortion.
In some ways, aborted, pre-born babies have it worse than post-born male chickens. PETA and other animal lovers have no empathy for the human animal since there are so-called valid reasons for abortion–just as there are valid reasons for grinding male chicks into pulp.
Various parallels can be drawn between chick-grinding and baby murder: . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Nevertheless, I’m always entertained by the writers and producers of animal cruelty tales and videos and by groups such as PETA who get livid over videos like this on chicken farmers who apparently routinely grind up millions of live male chicks because they are useless: http://tinyurl.com/nzu9oj.
It’s a pretty ugly sight whether one is an animal lover or not. Causing such excruciating pain to any living creature has to warp the minds of the perpetrators who tell themselves it is instant euthanasia.
No doubt many women’s libbers delight in the poetic justice of any male being chopped and diced but I think it’s nothing short of disgustingly brutal even if male chicks are not economically viable: They can’t lay eggs and don’t fatten up fast enough.
We usually think of pictures like these when we think chicken:
There’s more to a chicken than meets the eye or the palate.
On the other hand, we don’t consume human babies–yet–but we have the more popular practice of abortion.
In some ways, aborted, pre-born babies have it worse than post-born male chickens. PETA and other animal lovers have no empathy for the human animal since there are so-called valid reasons for abortion–just as there are valid reasons for grinding male chicks into pulp.
Various parallels can be drawn between chick-grinding and baby murder: . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
PETA: People Evolving Toward Assininity
PETA, People Evolving Toward Assininity, aka People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has long been known for its concern that we humans wise up and smell the reality that animals are people, too!
Okay, they don’t precisely say that. In truth, they feel that the many species of beasties that inhabit the planet are not really people. They’re much better. They don’t hate, they don’t murder, they don’t backbite, they don’t hold grudges, and they don’t vote.
See “President Obamabortion . . . ” (et al.)http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=213
PETA’s Mission Statement proclaims that its alleged 2 million strong membership is dedicated to relieving the suffering of animals, which is certainly admirable. It also focuses on protecting “beavers, birds, and other ‘pests’ and the abuse of backyard dogs.” http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp.
That, I guess, is admirable as well although its inattention to frontyard and sideyard dogs is somewhat disturbing.
Its mission statement also omits all reference to that animal designed to be the ruler of the animal pack, that animal intended by God to be at the top of the food chain, the only animal infused with an immortal soul, the human animal.
“PETA people” is not intentionally synonymous with “PITA people,” which acronym has to do with what some doctors were wont to scribble on patient charts to describe those who were Pains In The Arse. Still, that designation aptly applies to PETAs.
PETA is always thirsting for publicity, whether through over-the-top, and banned ads, such as those depicting “poultry morgues” in supermarkets or bulging, impotent pizza delivery guys or singing cows or copulating cats, http://www.spike.com/collection/15167.
More “mainstream” PETA advertisements and demonstrations, such as nude women covered in animal blood and attacking fur-wearing women, were deemed acceptable.
PETA was recently in the news in a story relating to the title of this piece. The super-sensitive organization objected to our super-sensitive president’s swatting a fly and suggested a more humane approach to dealing with such pests, namely trapping future flies and then releasing them in the great outdoors.
Criticized by Pro-Lifers for its focus on flies and ignoring people, a spokesman said employed the glib reductio ad absurdum argument that, “We don’t take a stance on that (abortion) any more than Operation Rescue would take a stance on going vegetarian:” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51096
Well, not exactly, PETANS. Your organization’s very name indicates your interest is in ethically treating “animals,” which should reasonably incorporate the top of the food chain unless, of course, you feel humans are not atop that chain and that dogs, cats, snakes, chickens–and flies–supersede people.
PETA even offered its alternative to smushing flies, its handy-dandy “Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher,” available for eight bucks for fly/bug lovers.
Now, I’m sure PETA people are very intelligent folks. After all, aren’t all caring folk sensitive? However, they may not be aware of the nature of the fly.
Flies may be cute lil creatures to PETA . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Okay, they don’t precisely say that. In truth, they feel that the many species of beasties that inhabit the planet are not really people. They’re much better. They don’t hate, they don’t murder, they don’t backbite, they don’t hold grudges, and they don’t vote.
See “President Obamabortion . . . ” (et al.)http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=213
PETA’s Mission Statement proclaims that its alleged 2 million strong membership is dedicated to relieving the suffering of animals, which is certainly admirable. It also focuses on protecting “beavers, birds, and other ‘pests’ and the abuse of backyard dogs.” http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp.
That, I guess, is admirable as well although its inattention to frontyard and sideyard dogs is somewhat disturbing.
Its mission statement also omits all reference to that animal designed to be the ruler of the animal pack, that animal intended by God to be at the top of the food chain, the only animal infused with an immortal soul, the human animal.
“PETA people” is not intentionally synonymous with “PITA people,” which acronym has to do with what some doctors were wont to scribble on patient charts to describe those who were Pains In The Arse. Still, that designation aptly applies to PETAs.
PETA is always thirsting for publicity, whether through over-the-top, and banned ads, such as those depicting “poultry morgues” in supermarkets or bulging, impotent pizza delivery guys or singing cows or copulating cats, http://www.spike.com/collection/15167.
More “mainstream” PETA advertisements and demonstrations, such as nude women covered in animal blood and attacking fur-wearing women, were deemed acceptable.
PETA was recently in the news in a story relating to the title of this piece. The super-sensitive organization objected to our super-sensitive president’s swatting a fly and suggested a more humane approach to dealing with such pests, namely trapping future flies and then releasing them in the great outdoors.
Criticized by Pro-Lifers for its focus on flies and ignoring people, a spokesman said employed the glib reductio ad absurdum argument that, “We don’t take a stance on that (abortion) any more than Operation Rescue would take a stance on going vegetarian:” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51096
Well, not exactly, PETANS. Your organization’s very name indicates your interest is in ethically treating “animals,” which should reasonably incorporate the top of the food chain unless, of course, you feel humans are not atop that chain and that dogs, cats, snakes, chickens–and flies–supersede people.
PETA even offered its alternative to smushing flies, its handy-dandy “Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher,” available for eight bucks for fly/bug lovers.
Now, I’m sure PETA people are very intelligent folks. After all, aren’t all caring folk sensitive? However, they may not be aware of the nature of the fly.
Flies may be cute lil creatures to PETA . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
President Obamabortion
President Obamabortion: Turn in Your Consciences!
America’s president breaks new ground virtually every day. Now, his shovel is digging away, chipping away in the ground of that quality which distinguishes people from all other species on the planet, humankind’s sense of conscience.
Many beasts of the Earth are more powerful than humans, many are faster, more ravenous. To PETA people, denizens of the animal world are better than we and maybe more attractive and intelligent than we are. However, as far as I know, even PETA does not attribute to animals the element of conscience.
Merriam-Webster defines the word as “the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.”
In his effort to abort as many pre-born babies as possible, the most avidly pro-abortion president in America’s history is in process of amending that definition. In effect, he is adding to that sense of “moral goodness” and “obligation to do right or be good” the limitation, “except when Mr. Obamabortion dictates otherwise.
Personally, I don’t like “holier than thou” types, professional do-gooders who seek self-agrandizement more than true goodness and I certainly don’t hold myself out as an exemplar of a perfect morality. However, what I truly detest is anyone who seeks to impose no options but evil options on decent people.
Such is the aim of the abortion lobby, Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and President Obamabortion.
As with most political activists and politicians, they try to cloak their actual intent with ambiguity and obfuscate that intent with misleading rhetoric and false promises.
Thus, when Sec. Sebelius says that the president “supports existing federal laws that prevent federally funded health care providers from forcing doctors and pharmacists who morally oppose abortion from either performing the procedure or providing abortion-inducing medication,” she is out and out lying. . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)