PETA Loves Jail?

Okay, so in one of my random visits to the PETA website, looking for fuel for my anti-PETA fire, I had initially stumbled onto a link to GoVeg.com and their "Top Ten Reasons to go Vegetarian in 2008" article, which enraged me horribly. For starters, three of their Top Ten reasons were about being healthy and happy. I know plenty of fat and miserable vegetarians. I'll have to save that rant for another day, because I later stumbled onto a PETA Top Ten list that dumbfounded me.

I'd heard about their list of the top ten vegetarian-friendly colleges. I guess if we shovel all of the college-age liberal hippies into select locations, the sane people will know which ones to avoid. I've got little problem with shining a light on college hippie liberalism and all that jazz. And then there was a reference to the top ten vegetarian-friendly ballparks. This started worrying me, because I didn't think people went to ballparks to enjoy anything other than beer, peanuts, crackerjack, and um that sport. I think it's called "baseball" or something. So apparently baseball isn't a sport that has pissed PETA off yet (unlike basketball and football) and PETA is rewarding those ballparks offering attendees some vegetarian options (because apparently nachos, beer and peanuts aren't good enough for some people). Fine. Promote tourism and try and suck up enough to maybe get ballparks to return the favor somehow. I can stomach that quid-pro-quo of sleazy business.

That's when this article came up: "Top 10 Vegetarian-Friendly Prisons!"

Words fail me.

Okay, now words are passing once again and I can rant about this. PETA has run out of venues that lots of people wind up at and might be interested in a vegetarian cuisine, so they offered up a list of PRISONS that cater to the herbivores among the captives. Somehow they bothered to catch on that people would think "um, so they're trying to convince people to go to jail?" and offered this statement: "I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if this latest top 10 list gets you all amped about the prospect of going to one of these prisons, you may want to set some slightly more ambitious goals for yourself … but for the people who—through bad luck or poor planning—are on their way there, this will come as some very good news."

So then they go into a shpiel about prisoners who want to better themselves, or possibly punish their taste buds as much as their prison-raped anuses, and eventually go into the list of vegetarian-friendly prisons and the menu items they offer which got them on the list. Some of these items just sound incredibly terrible...

Vegan hot cakes (I hope this is talking about pancakes and not something else), meatless chicken macaroni casserole (which most of us would call "macaroni casserole", but they apparently put fake chicken in it), soy Salisbury steak (as if regular Salisbury steak served at a prison weren't bad enough), baked macaroni crumble (it shouldn't count on the list if it doesn't say "vegetarian or vegan" since that's just a regular item! That's like saying they're vegetarian-friendly because they serve Diet Coke!) and possibly one of the grossest menu items I've heard of: vegetarian shepherd’s pie with texturized vegetable protein. I don't know where to begin with insulting this dish. I eat Slim Jims, which contain on their ingrediant list "mechanically separated chicken" - and you know what? That still sounds more appetizing than "texturized vegetable protein" ever will!

It gets better, though. They thought that naming these prisons would bring some kind of glory to them in some way - that they'd be thanked for bringing this vegetarian-friendliness to light - and that's just not the case. North Dakota (#10 on the list) offered these responses:

Wade Moser, executive director of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association in Bismarck, wouldn't bite. "It's just one of the tactics PETA uses to get attention," he said. "It doesn't deserve comment."

Tim Schuetzle, warden of the North Dakota pen and director of the state prison system, said the inclusion of vegetarian meals on his menu "really was in response to religious diets" required by some prisoners.

"It's a tenet of their religion that they don't eat meat," he said. "There are some who have special diets for medical reasons, too. It's not like the prison is promoting vegetarianism or coddling prisoners with a fancy dining experience, he said. "We're not saying, 'Here's our salad bar, and would you like tofu with that?'"

Even more luckily, the non-vegan egg on PETA's face gets even stickier when I found out that one of PETA's biggest and most-popular current enemies might not be in jail for as long as they thought!

That's right - Michael Vick might not be in jail quite as long as originally planned. PETA advocates were practically dancing when the judge ruled a 23-month sentence was in order, which is typically a longer sentence considering the crime. Yahoo! Sports is reporting, though, that it's possible he might be able to shave 12 months off that sentence. It's all because of marijuana, too. The same failed drug test that could possibly have led to the increased prison sentence might prove to be the reason for a reduced sentence.

Apparently the drug treatment program he was able to enter into thanks to the positive test for marijuana, which is only in place at the Leavenworth federal penitentiary, allows inmates to wipe off up to a year of their sentence if they complete the drug treatment program. Thing is, in order to get the time cut off his sentence, he'd have to be in the program for a year. And since he hasn't started yet, he's still looking at a good chunk of his sentence. Even so, he might only have to serve 12 or 13 months of the 23-month sentence because of it, and Yahoo! Sports said (possibly jokingly) that he could be back for the 2009 football season.

I mean provided he gets his indefinite suspension lifted, passes various drug tests, and finds a team that would sign him after all of this negative press surrounding him that would certainly taint any team that hires him.

But hey, stranger things have happened. And I'd just love to see PETA get all ruffled about their victory becoming a disgraceful defeat in the end...

(The PETA article about veggie-friendly prisons)
(The response from North Dakota)
(The article about Michael Vick)


Read more!

PETA vs Vick: The Numbers Don't Lie

I'll agree with PETA on one thing (waits for the *gasp*s to cease): dogfighting and the preparations for dogfighting are cruelty to the animals. Few animals on the planet enjoy being electrocuted (notice how I said "few" - I know some twisted individuals out there). But with that in mind, PETA has gotten so worked up over the fact that Michael Vick participated (or stood by and allowed it) in the deaths of eight dogs.

Eight. Keep that number in mind.

I get it. Vick killed animals. Or rather, let them die. No, I'll go as far as to say he killed them, and I'm sure there are legal terms for criminally-neglegent homocide, except homocide is for killing people - is it "canuside"? "Canucide"? "Dogicide"?

Anyway, the point is that the ones who are pointing fingers and calling him out are the members of PETA. If there were ever a case of pots calling kettles black, these pots in particular would be black holes - so dark that no amount of light could ever escape the darkness that dwells in these pots. Because PETA certainly kills animals. "How many? More than eight?" - I hear you cry.

Try 14,400 since 1998.

It's a number that the Center for Consumer Freedom is trying to get out to the public, going to the point of taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times to illustrate the hypocrisy of this "humane" organization. The text of the ad reads as such:

Who’s killed more animals? Vick (8) or PETA (14,400):

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) loves to point the finger at others, when they should be looking at their own record of killing more than 90% of the animals left in their care. According to government records PETA has killed more than 14,400 animals since 1998.

In fact, PETA has been using the Michael Vick incident to sell shirts, gain subscribers, and otherwise profit from someone who's killed a mere fraction of the animals they've killed in the past year alone.

"PETA has shamelessly used the horrific Michael Vick case to pad their group’s coffers, even though their track record of slaughtering thousands of helpless, adoptable animals is far more damning," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "Americans need to be aware of how PETA treats animals in their care and reject the group’s overt hypocrisy."

I mean for crying out loud - two employees of PETA in North Carolina admitted personally killing dozens of dogs and cats in what was literally a "death van" and then tossing the lifeless bodies of the critters into a nearby trash dumpster.

Again, dogfighting and those who torture the dogs to prepare them for the fights are fine examples of cruelty to animals. I'm not saying that isn't the case. My point is that you can't take it seriously when the screams of cruelty are coming from those responsible for puppy-killing deathmoblies. You wouldn't listen to a serial killer speaking out against a man who committed second-degree manslaughter, so why would you listen to an organization responsible for killing over 14,000 animals speaking out against a man who killed 8? The math doesn't add up. The logic doesn't add up.

Yes, Michael Vick killed animals.
But PETA killed thousands more this year alone.

And they're still out there, killing more dogs and cats every day, all the while yelling how killing animals is wrong and cruel.

At least they locked up Vick. When are we finally going to arrest every member of PETA?

And don't even get me started on the other animal-rights terrorist groups...

(www.PETAkillsanimals.com)
(Their press release about the PETA versus Vick advertisement)







Read more!

Vick's Dogs Dying Anyway?

Yes, dogfighting is cruel. Yes, Vick and his cronies buying dogs, "training" them and then fighting them to the death is cruelty. You're not going to hear me say otherwise - it's a vicious thing to do and he deserves jail time for his misdeeds.

But at the end of the day - aren't they just going to die anyway?

Welcome to the life of pit bulls - a breed of dogs that has been bred over many years to be an aggressive animal used for guarding and attacking. Just as golden retrievers have been bred to be best at helping the blind get through their day as seeing-eye dogs, and just as border collies have been bred to herd sheep for their owners, and just as chihuahuas have been bred to shake nervously and pee - pit bulls were bred for vicious action.

No, I'm not blaming the dogs for the cruelty they were put through - I'm saying that they're the most likely candidates to fall victim to this bloodsport in the seedy underbelly of society. You're not going to train a poodle to kill in the ring - you'd want a dog that has the look and the potential to be a killing machine. Enter the pit bull. Then enter Michael Vick.

This guy and his friends admittedly purchased a location and owned a kennel specifically for these dogs. They trained them and put them through the wringers to hone in on their killing skills, and that does suck. But when you get right down to it, where do you draw the line between Michael Vick's dastardly ploy that winds up with winners and losers and potential death for any of these pit bulls - and the government's seizing of the pit bulls after locking up Vick and the others, creating a ticking clock for all of these animals to be simply put to death.

That's right - they're all destined to die.

Truth of the matter is, there's nothing anyone can do. They've tried notifying anyone they can of people who left their dogs at the kennel or sold their dogs to Vick and his cohorts. The dogs are sitting in shelters right now. The window to claim them was over a few days ago, 30 days after their initial seizure in late July. They're now currently owned by the federal government, and it's going to be a federal judge's decision that deems whether these animals live or die. Well, I mean live longer than if the judge demands euthanasia. Which is highly likely.

Even PETA - those douchebags who always pray for animal peace and welfare and then perform terrorist acts against businesses to "make a point" - says they're going to die. And PETA should know - over 90% of the animals "rescued" by this organization are killed and their carcasses are thrown into a walk-in freezer until they can be disposed of.

Says Daphna Nachminovitch, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "There's no dispute over who owns the dogs. Obviously this is not going to be a process where someone steps forward and says, 'This is my dog, can I have her back, please?' These dogs are a ticking time bomb. Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards. It's widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them."

And that's PETA talking!

The damage has been done. The dogs are now "damaged goods" and nobody's going to be able to take care of them. They're too aggressive (beyond the aggressive nature of the breed in general) to be taken in as pets. It's bad enough to watch a family adopt a pit bull, knowing their violent tendencies, but to adopt one that's already been TRAINED TO KILL? I don't think so.

So they're going to die anyway. Whether they stayed at Bad Newz Kennels and fought to the death as valiantly as possible until the bitter loss of defeat ended their career and life - or were kept in a fenced cell for 30 days until a judge banged a gavel and they were injected with a lethal cocktail and died quickly and without a fight - they will be dying soon.

So what's the lesson in this? Do we regulate the breeding of these animals so there are less of this aggressive breed around to have people train them and fight them in the underground dogfights that simply cannot be stopped? (Let's face it, even the police have no idea how to stop the dogfights from going on because they almost ALWAYS find out AFTER the fights and the damage has been done and nobody is arrested because it's too late to find anyone.) Do we try and up the ante and make the penalties harsher for these crimes that so rarely get caught - just to satiate the public when a rare arrest is actually made? Do we just kill all the members of PETA? (Sorry, that's just for my benefit, so one of these rhetorical questions rings out as "yes" for me.)

Truth is - I have no idea. Which isn't that horrible of a thing. But it's the fact that the government has no idea either. And we still can't even decide if it should BE the government's decision to make. After all, we are the humans and they are the beasts - that gives us the right to own them and eat them, so why not let us fight them? And why not let us eat them, no matter what the beast? When you look at the delicacies of THIS country, let alone those of other countries (rat buffet, anyone?) - don't you get the impression that if it's made of meat, we can eat it?

That's my solution, anyway. I've heard the saying, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Well, mine's more of an "Eat 'em all and let the Intestines sort 'em out!" kind of plan.

Bob Barker led an amazing career of telling us to spay or neuter our pets to help control the pet overpopulation problem. I say that it's a lot more humane to kill 'em and grill 'em than it is to chop off their testicles and let 'em STILL wander the streets. We solve the pet overpopulation problem, and we provide meat to the impoverished, at home and overseas. We've already domesticated them and learned to breed them as well - isn't it a matter of time before they join the rest of the domesticated/bred animal kingdom like cows and pigs and sheep?

Now, before you go painting me as Cruella de Ville with a lovely Dalmation coat, it's just an idea. A crazy and seemingly insensitive one, true - but can you really argue that it's worse than rescuing over 50 dogs from a cruel underground dogfighting circuit and telling us that the only thing we can do for these dogs is to KILL THEM? At least in my version, a poor family can have Pit Bull Fajitas or something...

I'm open to hear other ideas - go for it. Tell me how YOU think we should stop what cannot be stopped - and then at the end of the day find something positive to do about it in the end. Because you can't stop the dogfighting. And you can barely attempt to stop the breeding of the dogs themselves. And you can't stop the killing of animals that can't be adopted even though you "rescued" them.

So what do we do? Leave a comment. Let me know YOUR ideas. Together, maybe we can do something...

(The article with the deadline and PETA bitch)
(A website with a friendly reminder that animal cruelty is bad - in case somehow we forget that)







Read more!