People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. What a great concept. I am all for the ethical treatment of animals. In fact, that is why I’m mainly okay with hunting: if you’re going to kill and use an animal for food, shooting it is a much better way than electrocuting it, or smashing in its head with a hammer, after it has lived its entire life being raised for that purpose. So if PETA adhered to its simple seven-word mission statement, the statement that comprises its name, I would be all over it. I’d sign their petitions, I’d wear their t-shirts. Instead, I’d like to see them rounded up and dropped off in a Costa Rican jungle where they have to live out the remainder of their days surrounded by bugs and Heidi and Spencer Pratt.
My main problem with PETA is that they exist solely to feed their own hype machine. Their naked celebrity ads, their trying to rename fish “sea kittens;” that’s not to help animals, it’s to generate publicity and donations so their business keeps running — plain and simple. Now I’m not saying that the people who run PETA don’t give a shit about animals; that they sit around their homes de-clawing cats and sucking down lobster tails. I’m just saying that the ethical treatment of animals is not their primary concern.
For all its visibility and money, PETA is seen as a group of crackpots in a way that say, the SPCA is not. While dumping red paint may have changed some peoples minds on whether or not they should wear fur, I’d be willing to bet that the assault has turned off more people toward the organization and animal rights groups in general. Fur is not only cruel, it is tacky and ugly. But I would love to have a mink stole just on the off chance wearing it would give me an excuse to punch a PETA member in the face.
Would that be a cheap shot? Sure. But for a company built solely on cheap stunts, it would be appropriate. For instance, as a new mother, I can understand people’s concern over giving cow’s milk to babies, and the idea that cow’s milk is for baby cows, and it can lead to health issues if given to children. This, to me, is an interesting argument. But you know what doesn’t make me want to further explore the issue? Telling Ben & Jerry’s to start making their ice cream with breast milk. That doesn’t make me think about the plight of cows, or the health implication of drinking milk. It makes me think that PETA is full of crazy assholes.
Perhaps instead of spending all of their time and resources on stunts and getting Kardashian sisters naked, PETA should bring the focus back on the animals and educating people on how to treat them ethically. Or better yet, why don’t they just step out of the spotlight for a while and work on making their shelters, in which they euthanize the vast majority of animals that come in, into no-kill shelters. Other organizations are doing it, why can’t PETA?
In short, PETA has become the vag-flashing Paris Hilton of the animal rights world, and it’s not what we need. We don’t need crazy stunts and desperate grabs for publicity. We, and the animals, need something much simpler. A level-headed approach to treating animals ethically. Until PETA can provide that, this is one vegetarian who would rather eat a burger than give PETA a dime.
Clacked by Kona Gallagher 
on Jun 10, 2009 @ 13:00 EST5EDT
I think the whole point of asking Ben and Jerry’s to use breast milk is to explain that milk made by a mammal is for it’s own child only, not for other species. So that doesn’t mean they are crazy. They knew what they were doing and talking about, and thought maybe Ben and Jerry’s, as well as others, would catch that, but apparently many people did not.
I’m not saying I’m in love with PETA. I also think their publicity stunts are ridiculous, but they have certainly made progress with animal rights, even if things they do disgust people who don’t see the good. Not all followers are crazy freaks with hopes of tormenting omnivores.
And BTW, I’m not a vegan.