What do you enjoy reading the most here on my blog?

Search My Blog

Thursday, January 10, 2008

PETA Not Versus Britney?

If there's ever been an organization that could be known for backhanded compliments, backhanded complaints and just plain backhanded EVERYTHING - it would almost definitely be PETA. Sometimes it even backhands its own logic just to get more public attention. For example, Ingrid Newkirk (the evil dictator of the evil empire) has it in her PETA mission statement that animals are not ours to own and should be free, which means NO PETS. So every time PETA gets in a tizzy about dogs and cats, I keep wondering why their stance isn't "no pets" every time.

Eventually I learned that PETA apparently just wants them all dead so nobody can own any. They want all the breeders shut down, they want all current pets spayed or neutered, and they routinely go around "rescuing" animals from shelters (when not protesting shelters) and kill them all in puppy-killing deathmobiles and dump the carcasses in dumpsters. Which means you can't breed them, nobody else can breed them, and they'll kill any of them not currently owned. All dogs and cats would be dead after this generation. Thanks, PETA. If that's not a backhanded slap in the face to all your members who think you're trying to HELP animals when in reality you want SPECIES GENOCIDE, I don't know what is.

But I digress, this is about Britney Spears. Seriously, it is. The problem is that PETA seems to want to excuse Britney while still calling her inexcusable. They want to give her leniency by shining a spotlight on her and berating her. It all begins with the "PETA Worst-Dressed-List" - a crock of shit that's basically a list of celebrities who wear fur or perhaps have a clothing line that uses fur, and uppity PETA members vote for which one they'd like to assassinate most. Britney was on their initial list this year and, despite being the front-runner in the first few days of voting, PETA recently decided to remove her from the list. Here's what PETA said about the decision (and watch for all the backhandedness):

Given her recent trip to the psych ward, it's becoming more and more clear that she's not entirely accountable for her actions — and that includes her poor fashion choices just as much as it does her bad parenting decisions.

With that in mind, we've decided to give Britney a bit of a break this year, and take her off the Worst-Dressed-List poll, despite the fact that she had established herself as a strong front-runner in the first two days of voting. Here's what PETA Vice President Dan Mathews had to say about the decision:

"People with l'il kids shouldn't dress like L'il Kim. But at this point, Britney needs a break — from everybody. Maybe when her head is clear, she'll have a change of heart about wearing fur. If not, we'll be back biting at her heels."

So there you have it, but the question is, did we make the right choice in giving Brit a break this year despite her unfortunate penchant for, um, flaunting her fur in public?


Okay, so they want to give her a break - but had to at the same time call her out for wearing fur anyway, insult her parenting, make an offhand remark about the public exposure incident and basically call her insane? That's just plain stupid and backhanded. Especially when you finish up your "let's leave Britney alone" message with a "we will not leave Britney alone" message.

I still can't tell if they seriously want to attempt leaving Britney alone, despite their jackassedly-persistent tendencies of insulting everything that doesn't fit into their collective mindview. Of course, once you remember that their collective mindview is more psychotic and insane than the ramblings of most mental patients - who's really the insane one here, PETA? For once, maybe it's not Britney Spears.

Besides, something tells me that this incident of backhandedly excusing Britney from the Worst-Dressed-List is going to get MORE publicity than the actual results of a PETA Worst-Dressed-List anyway. Which means you really haven't given her a break at all.

But I guess it just holds true that you can't believe a single word coming from an organization that considers "rescue" to take the form of a puppy-killing deathmobile.

(PETA's statement about Britney)
(PetaKillsAnimals.com)


3 comments:

Lauren said...

Your spreading slander and wickedness.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

AaronBSam said...

No, Lauren. I'm spreading the truth about the evils of PETA in every facet of their existence.

Anonymous said...

Haha, damn...
FYI: it's called sarcasm. ;]