PETA features Michelle Obama in new anti-fur ad - WH says image is used without her permission

[Kadie]

PETA features Michelle Obama in new anti-fur ad

59 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The fur is flying over a new ad campaign by an animal rights group the White House says is using first lady Michelle Obama's image without her permission.

The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Ingrid Newkirk, said her organization wouldn't have sought Mrs. Obama's consent for the anti-fur ad because it knows that she can't make such an endorsement.

PETA included the first lady in its Washington ad campaign based on White House confirmation that she does not wear fur.

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_michelle_obama_peta_2



This image released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals shows a new PETA ad that features Carrie Underwood, first lady Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks. All have shunned wearing fur. The White House says PETA is using Obama's image without her permission. The ads are appearing in Washington's Metro stations, magazines and PETA's Web site.
(AP Photo/PETA)

[seabeyond]

1. this org has no integrity at all. lacks ethics..... no respect. nt

[kestrel91316]

3. You summed it up perfectly: NO ETHICS.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tonysam]

41. They are much worse than that.

Most people, and certainly most members, have little idea how extreme the organization is. If they knew PETA was against animal domestication, nobody would give a dime to these kooks.

I effing hate this group. There are REAL organizations out there helping animals without crackpots yammering about "animal rights."

[superduperfarleft]

58. You're so full of shit it hurts.

You care more about sliming PETA and your warped view of animal rights theory than you do about actual animals.

[Ignis]

62. "crackpots yammering about 'animal rights.'"

Fact-free post? Check.
Unsubstantiated lies? Check.
Ad hominems galore? Check.
Sputtering hatred? Check.

All systems are GO! :hurts:

[RebelOne]

86. Well, I am one of those animal rights crackpots.

I am a card-carrying member of PETA. Some of what they do is a little overboard, but they also do plenty of good works for the animals.

[donheld]

134. Do you support their dishonesty with this ad?

[rd_kent]

89. +1000000

[Ignis]

96. Presumably, you can't provide any proof either. (nt)

[rd_kent]

101. I see the proof with my own eyes every time they do stupid shit like this.

[Ignis]

102. Ah, Truthiness, then. Just one of those things you "feel in your gut."

Got it. :eyes:

[rd_kent]

103. No, I SEE it, not feel it. Whats so hard to understand about that?

I see the behavior, I see the ads, I see what they are doing. No "feeling" about it.

but hey, if you don't see it too, thats okay. I wasn't trying to argue this with you, just giving my observation. Yours is obviously different than mine.

[Ignis]

104. Here's a line from the post that prompted your "+1000000":

If they knew PETA was against animal domestication, nobody would give a dime to these kooks.

Where, precisely, did you SEE that? Or are you just making stuff up because you don't like the organization in question?

I don't like Republicans, but I don't claim that Promoting Child Molestation is a central plank of their party platform.

[rd_kent]

105. Maybe I am mistaken, IS PETA against animal domestication?

and my +100000 was noting that I agreed with the general point being made by that poster.

I guess I really do not see where you are coming from, attacking me for agreeing with a view that many share of PETA. What are your feelings on the organization?

[Ignis]

106. Oh, I'm not a huge PETA fan.

There are several vegans, vegetarians, and/or AR activists who post on DU who share my apathy for that organization tactics...as a cursory read of this thread would show.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and let people just make stuff up about the organization because they disagree with that organization's mission or methods. (See the GOP example above.) The fact that "many" DUers are also willing to engage in broad-brush attacks doesn't make it any better.

And a "+1" isn't the same as a "I mostly agree, but you're mistaken about blah blah blah." One presumes that a "+1000000" is even further removed from such nuance.

[rd_kent]

107. Ok, I see. but IS PETA against animal domestication?

You didn't say.

[Ignis]

108. No, Tonysam did. And you agreed. That's why I asked for proof.

Again, I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking this intellectually lazy mob mentality that DU exhibits whenever anyone mentions the PETA boogeyman.

So if you see someone post that "Republicans want to enforce mandatory child molestation at their Child Re-Education Camps!!111!" and you see me agree with that idiotic statement, please please please be sure to ask me for proof.

[rd_kent]

109. It is my understanding that PETA is against animal domestication, is that not right?

with the exception of service animals. I concede I may be wrong, can you tell me if they are or are not against it?

[Ignis]

112. How did you come to that understanding?

A cursory glance at PETA's Mission Statement shows nothing of the sort, and a deeper look at their "companion animals" (their name for pets) FAQ reveals the following:

“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

Read more about ways to provide rich, interesting lives for your domesticated animal companions.

-- http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

The link from the last line of the above FAQ leads to a more detailed factsheet on PETA's stance on pets:
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=133
Again, nothing there that says PETA opposes animal domestication. Hell, at one point they recommend that people adopt two pets instead of one!

QED

[rd_kent]

115. Well, thats their webpage statement, but what about their actions and words?

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2005/peta-launches-campaign-comparing-animal-use-to-slavery/


Just an example. Seems like they are prone to hypocrisy like many groups are.

Anyway, doesn't really matter, PETA, IMO, goes too far much of the time and instead of bringing awareness to animal rights, it brings scorn and anger upon itself. To me, thats self defeating.

Thanks for the banter.

Peace out!

[Ignis]

118. In other words, facts don't matter, only Truthiness does.

Oh well, can't blame me for trying to reason with you. :shrug:
My default assumption--for good or ill--is that DUers are rational adults.

[rd_kent]

122. Facts? What facts? The webpage and the words from the leader contradict each other.

I listened to you and agreed for the most part. What gives? Just because I don;t see it EXACTLY like you do, I am wrong?

[Ignis]

127. Oy. Again, see the GOP example above.

Don't like PETA? Fine.
But that doesn't give you the right to just make shit up about them. :banghead:

Your blog link doesn't disprove PETA's official stance on animal domestication. I can create a bullshit WordPress blog in 5 minutes that says that Republicans real agenda is Child Molestation, but that doesn't make it so.

I mean, did you even read the blog to which you linked?

You can almost imagine some 19th century animal rights activist being asked if he could free a slave or a chicken which one he’d do, and having the activist reply that he’d free the chicken. Presumably, to Ingrid Newkirk, a rat is a pig is a dog is a slave.

(bolded for the hard-of-critical-thinking)

Yeah, that's some decisive, fact-based, impartial journalism there. :eyes:
We should definitely take this as gospel over the organization's published agenda. :dunce:

[closeupready]

131. They wobble a bit - they dislike the keeping of pets, but they love animals, so

it's a tricky wicket to navigate:

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

[yawnmaster]

137. PETA is against animal domestication...

from their own site...
regarding pets:
"...we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed."

"This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering..."

other domestication:
"People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose..."

[lukasahero]

138. No they are not

From the same web page to which you refer (we had this discussion an hour ago and the sub-thread was deleted):

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

Interesting that you didn't include a link to their web page so people could read the entire statement from which you are selectively quoting... http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

[Ignis]

139. Nice cherry-picking.

An intellectually honest approach, on the other hand, would have been to present the entire paragraphs containing those quotes, in context, with a link.

But if your goal was merely to post a fumble-fingered example of how to bungle a hatchet job on PETA: You win!

Oh, and by the way, here's a completely sourced refutation of your claim:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7407539&mesg_id=7407842

[lukasahero]

140. Hello again!

Nice to be given a second opportunity to get the actual facts on the table, isn't it? :hi:

[Ignis]

141. Pity we never receive facts in response, rather than Sturm und Drang.

I'm just grumpy to be forced into the role of "defending" PETA. I'm normally one of their more vocal critics among my circle of AR/veg friends.

But damn it, facts matter, and broad-brush smears against any group suck. :grr:

[lukasahero]

142. LOL!

OMG - me too!

I tend to be of a little more moderate variety. While I'm an insane dog person, I also know my dog is a dog and not a substitute child. Of course, to me, that does not diminish the worth of the dog. :)

I'm not really crabby about defending PETA but I am a little annoyed that these posters have made it so easy to do. :rofl:

[yawnmaster]

143. your link actually supports my statement...PETA is against the domestication of animals.

They would like to, if it were possible, to eliminate the available population of pets, by neutering and spaying.
Of course, they realize that this isn't very likely, so they would rather have the animals that are already there be in a home rather than out wild. But if they had a choice, there would be no new domesticated animals and the ones that are currently domesticated would eventually fade out.
I don't see how you can read anything other than that from their literature.

[Ignis]

144. Which specific quotes from those links prove your claim?

ETA: Oh, I'm feeling generous, so here's a softball pitch to start you on your way.

Use my links to prove the following claim in your post above:

They would like to, if it were possible, to eliminate the available population of pets, by neutering and spaying.

[Ignis]

146. One last kick, one last try at intelligent debate.

:shrug:

[yawnmaster]

147. I am convinced, you can not be; ...debate aborted... eom

[Ignis]

148. Because you haven't even tried. Support your claim. (nt)

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xenotime]

116. Do you speak for them? No. I don't think so.

[seabeyond]

119. their actions do speak for them and clearly show their lack of ethics and integrity

you are right, it is in their actions.

[blondeatlast]

2. FWTP! (First with the popcorn!) nt

[Goldstein1984]

4. Just to make the conversation more interesting...

PETA and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are two of my favorites.

Both are willing to step outside the system and fight the guerrilla war necessary to create change.

I'm sending them each $100 on payday. (To Sea Shepherd just because the PETA thing inspired me.)

[flvegan]

9. Psst...off topic, but Sea Shepherd found the whaling fleet today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=231x20251

[Goldstein1984]

24. Thanks. Haven't checked their site lately.

It's sort of on-topic though. I don't know anyone who supports PETA that doesn't also support groups like Sea Shepherd. In many ways, the actions of both groups reflect the same rejection of the system. The "system" in this case being that standard model of mainstream political action and "witnessing" carried on by PETA.

It kind of mirrors the current challenges to party loyalty and the status quo.

That said, everything in my world is an interrelated foggy mess, so I may see parallels that others do not.

[flvegan]

28. I agree.

While some folks that support PETA may have no idea who SSCS is (much smaller org in popularity at the moment...though that may well change after year 3 of Whale Wars), most would likely support the ideology. The alternate isn't often the case. Many SSCS supporters don't care for PETA, for a number of reasons.

Me? I like anyone willing to put their asses on the line. SSCS does it constantly, and PETA here and there.

[Goldstein1984]

34. PETA goes to far, in my opinion, when they argue that the honey

industry "enslaves" bees.

I just value their extreme positions as a necessary counterbalance to the extremes on the other side.

My views on SSCS, on the other hand, is that they are bravely fighting a guerrilla war to save highly intelligent animals that are no less deserving of life that we are. I have spent many hours on the bows of ships watching dolphins playing, and on birding cruises in the Gulf of Alaska when dolphins became our escorts, to see cetaceans as anything than our oceanic kin.

The support of SSCS by my wife and I makes us unpopular with my wife's Inuit relatives. Her grandfather was an Eskimo whaler out of Barrow, Alaska. She has relatives who still are, including a cousin who was the first female "captain" of a whaling boat. We both believe all whaling is wrong. All whaling is culturally based, so culture is not an argument for an inhumane and anachronistic practice.

Okay, I've gone far off topic, so I'll bring it home on PETA. I support them to the degree that they are willing to take on the status quo and be outrageous, and to the degree that their goals are the ethical treatment of animals. We probably disagree on where the ethical lines are drawn (e.g. enslavement of bees).

[superduperfarleft]

5. And again, PETA makes it about PETA as opposed to about the abolition

of animal exploitation (although I have my doubts that PETA really cares that much about that anyway).

[Brickbat]

10. Yup, totally agree.

And if it objectifies women, so much the better!

[Ignis]

15. You realize that PETA's marketing/PR groups are mostly female?

Right?

[seabeyond]

16. so? nt

[Brickbat]

17. Yep! And they're great at objectifying women!

[Ignis]

20. Yes, the lesbians in their Oakland office are horrid mysogynists.

:eyes:

Someone should really let them know that they're sex-traitors!

[Brickbat]

22. Just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Being a lesbian doesn't mean you can't approve a sexist, objectifying ad. But I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

[Ignis]

60. To whom else does your broad brush apply?

Is every Catholic woman a misogynist?
Is every Muslim woman a misogynist?
Is every Latina woman a misogynist?
Is every woman working in mainstream advertising a misogynist?
Is every woman married to someone working in mainstream advertising a misogynist?
Is every woman who watches advertising without changing the channel a misogynist?

Please do let us know which other organizations confer automatic misogyny by membership. :hi:

[Brickbat]

82. You're the one calling them misogynists, not me.

I did say they approve sexist ads. :hi:

[Ignis]

94. And yet they're "great at objectifying women," per your words.

But change the goalposts and do your little dance of obfuscation if you must. No one enjoys being caught engaging in broad-brush bigotry, so I suppose you can't be blamed for backpedaling.

:shrug:

[superduperfarleft]

27. Come on, man, I know you're better than that.

If you agree that men can be warped by being raised in a patriarchal society, can't you see that maybe women can as well? After all, look at the Log Cabin Republicans...

[Ignis]

54. I don't buy the underlying argument, not this ham-fisted application.

I think that PETA ad campaigns are tin-eared at best, and are often neutral-to-unhelpful to the cause of animal rights legislation.

However, to single out PETA for effectively using the medium and messages that Mad Ave has been using for almost a century is ridiculous in the extreme.

So if someone says that a particular PETA ad is misogynistic, I might agree. But to claim that the entire organization is sexist is beyond the pale.

And I can't help it that some of my best friends in the Bay Area AR movement (who also work at PETA) happen to be lesbians. But to call them mysogynists because they work for PETA? C'mon, that's imbecilic.

Until I hear these same people make the claim that every single female member of an Abrahamic religion is a misogynist, I'll keep sticking up for PETA in this regard. Because broad brushes suck, no matter how much we might dislike the target of their application.

[superduperfarleft]

56. How about this:

PETA's ad campaigns are at best tone-deaf and at worst misogynistic. The individual people in the organization maybe could benefit from not being surrounded by a pro-PETA echo chamber all the time (and I say this as someone who has also known many people who worked from them and gave me great insight as to the internal operation), even though they may not be themselves misogynistic/racist, etc.

[Ignis]

64. Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

The echo chamber effect shouldn't be underestimated, certainly. But why single out PETA in that regard? Watched any political commercials lately? :D

I'm no fan of PETA's ads/PR/marketing. But they do some great investigative work, and they can bring resources to bear public focus on a previously obscure AR issue incredibly swiftly. To dismiss the entire organization as contemptible without taking those facts into account just isn't fair, and I won't just roll over when I see it happen on DU.

Sure, it's just a pet project, but I can't be everywhere at once. Let someone else defend the feminist Mormons. ;)

[seabeyond]

65. whats the big deal in dressing up as KKK members and standing on the street

sure, may offend the blacks that walk by, but what the hell, their cause is worth any little offense it may cause to blacks.

they are only people after all, animals though, now the animals are important.

you really dont think they knew exactly how offensive they are dressing as KKK

who else gets a pass dressing up as KKK members to promote their agenda?

[Ignis]

76. Sorry, Ignored, I can't hear you.

Feel free to send me a PM if you've stopped doing whatever it was (several times) that got you Ignored in the first place.

I don't block PMs. :hi:

[mopinko]

11. eggzactly.

i have to wonder what the hell they are ACTUALLY about.

[tonysam]

42. They don't care about animal exploitation.

They don't want domesticated animals to exist, period, because these whackadoodles think it is slavery. After all, people are just another type of "animal," so people have no right to eat animals, or "exploit" them in entertainment or sports, or have pets since all animals are equal. Never mind the inherent absurdity of such beliefs, for these people become vegan, etc. because of "ethical" reasons, but "ethics" can only exist among humans. Therefore, humans aren't just any old animal. Not to mention the fact there is such a thing as a food chain, and if all animals have rights, then no animal has any right to eat another.

These nutters REALLY want to force a vegan lifestyle on everybody else and tell others they can't have dogs or cats or other animals or raise them for livestock or clothing. Never mind being a vegetarian or vegan is NOT natural, and domesticated animals, including pets, are extremely beneficial for human beings.

[superduperfarleft]

46. Um, I'm vegan.

You should probably save your froth for someone who is in your corner, because I'm not.

I believe that people have no right to eat animals, or exploit them for entertainment or sports. I believe that domesticated animals should all be neutered or spayed, and should no longer be sold as accessories for people's furniture. And I don't give a flying fuck whether exploiting animals is "beneficial" for human beings, anymore than I care whether having black slaves is beneficial for white people.

Trust me, we are NOT on the same side. At all.

Nevermind the fact that you clearly have no fucking clue at all what "animal rights" actually represents. But feel free to continue spewing your ignorance all over this board anytime PETA comes up. :eyes:

[Ignis]

70. Oh, is this your first sortie with this gem?

I recommend a facemask, lest you hurt yourself with facepalms. :hi:

It's enough to make me drink a Red Stripe! ;)

[superduperfarleft]

72. I think I'll have a Budweiser or 5 and turn off the computer.

This much stupid this late at night makes my head hurt.

[Ignis]

74. I'll stick to KY bourbons: Made in the USA and vegan!

:toast:

[Rebubula]

110. Elijah Craig

Have you even had the pleasure of a nice 12 or 18 year old bottle of Elijah Craig?

It is what makes living worthwhile. Well....that and Mrs. Rebubula...

[Ignis]

128. Oh, hell yes!

I just bought the last bottle of the 12-year on the shelf at our local booze-shop. It's really, really smooth and silky, but that oak taste just won't let up. Very complex and fun!



I can't wait to share it with a few friends and family at our next party. :grouphug: :toast:

[Ignis]

67. As I have asked you ~1000 times, HAVE ANY PROOF?

Not made-up conjecture based on something one individual told you once--

Not your interpretation of someone's interpretation of a PETA press release--

Not some Rick-Berman-wet-dream, conspiracy-theory bullshit that reveals their TRUE motives with fuck-all for facts--

Real, honest-to-gawd proof that PETA's policy (mission statement, whatever) declares that they "don't want domesticated animals to exist, period, because these whackadoodles think it is slavery."

So...yeah. Got any? :shrug:

[rd_kent]

90. Why did you say another poster is full of shit for saying this?

He used different words but you said he cared more about sliming PETA than animals, and here you are doing the same thing. What gives?

[superduperfarleft]

113. That poster is full of shit in regards to their warped, wrong-headed view of what "animal rights"

means.

It is possible to be vegan, pro-animal rights, and not supportive of PETA, you know.

[hlthe2b]

7. I detest the fur industry... PETA has its problems....

but I'll be damned if I will defend the industry and selfish people who support such cruel exploitation of animals for fur, regardless of PETA's demonstrable need for some restraint in its methods.

[seabeyond]

12. who the fuck is defending the fur industry. does not have to be one or the other. an org

can actually have a cause and approach it in a respectful and ethical manner. they are not exclusive.

[hlthe2b]

13. Just the argument I am making, seabeyond...

PETA is obviously problematic, but the cause is worth fighting. Some here seem to get lost in the PETA issues and forget the latter.

[seabeyond]

18. peta purposely offends, objectifies, dehumanizes. they lack ethics. they lose

on their cause.

i dont justify this behavior because of a cause. people all over justify the end to the means. it is a horrible way to be as a people. i refuse. it hurts ALL of us.

[hlthe2b]

19. Nor do I

Why so seemingly antagonized with me, today, seabeyond (re: "WHO THE FUCK IS....")? I'm not disagreeing as to PETA, but I don't want the cause lost in the process. :shrug:

[superduperfarleft]

25. The cause gets lost in the progress because PETA is too busy acting like lunatics. n/t

[seabeyond]

29. not necessarily at you. i dont do fur, never have. no interest in. i dont do diamonds....

no interest in

but

they do LOSE the cause because of their process. i cannot in anyway ethically support their efforts or it makes me a hypocrite. if we say, this cause is important enough we will not hold them to the same standards we do on the org we dont support, that we are outraged by another orgs unethical behavior, then it makes us all hypocrites.

i am so damn tired of this org being a piece of shit org and then people expecting, demanding a respect they dont deserve, havent earned, because of their cause

they are like the ultimate in what is wrong in this nation. even with a good cause they fuck it up

[superduperfarleft]

23. But that's the problem with PETA's tactics.

No one ever ends up discussing the issues that PETA is attempting to address, they end up discussing PETA (and I suspect that this is PETA's main intent).

You're talking to an out-there, crazy, protein-deprived radical vegan here, so of course I'm sympathetic to the cause PETA claims to represent, but I just wish they'd go away. Objectification of women, dressing up in Klan outfits, etc. is not "fighting for animal rights," it's acting like a loon and preaching to the choir in order to garner donations and pay Ingrid's salary.

[hlthe2b]

26. Agree... n/t

[Ignis]

73. Just like so many other tone-deaf non-profits.

(Yes, yes, I realize that PETA isn't really a non-profit org. But it suffers from so many of the same problems. Sue me.)

Something that sounded wicked awesome in that brainstorming meeting just might not work so well out on the streets. Klan outfits?

:vegan facepalm:

[superduperfarleft]

77. You got it.

At least there's one person I can say I didn't piss off on DU tonight. :toast:

[Ignis]

79. Nah, I'm more often pissed, pissed-off, or pissed-on.

Often all three. ;)

[trotsky]

111. "preaching to the choir in order to garner donations and pay Ingrid's salary"

Bingo, you've got PETA's mission nailed down right there.

[flvegan]

8. YES! PETA in GD and GD: P at the same time!!

[Ignis]

21. And my DU Bingo card just got a little fuller.

:popcorn:

[seabeyond]

31. be smug. peta just shit all over the democrats. this is a democratic board, right?

i assume you are a democrat.

peta's piece of shit org, that has unethical and irresponsible behavior tied obama in with the org in the most dishonest manner. ammunition for repugs.

but hey, wtf.... defend the sorry asses at the org. fuck obama.

[flvegan]

35. With a leap like that, you should be in the Olympics. n/t

[seabeyond]

44. hm, lets see, associating obama as if michelle supports extreme org peta

what do the repugs do with this. hence obama having to say michelle did not OK that to DISassociate themselves from extreme left org/

what dem politician would EVER associate their name with peta?

[flvegan]

48. I suppose you can see it that way if you WISH to be outraged.

The ad simply shows four prominent, powerful women who have been at some point, represented to be against fur or fur-free by choice. That's it.

So again, bring the gold home for the USA okay?

[seabeyond]

49. or... if you wish to continue to support such an unethical org you can pretend

it isnt putting obama in a bad place associating his name with this extreme org

[flvegan]

52. No, not "or"

Nothing to do with me, really. You just fail to see the nature of the ad. My opinion is that it's because, as usual, you desire...no, crave to be outraged.

Only a fucking moron would look at this ad and associate Obama to PETA. Yeah, Rush might do it. The Freepers will try. But again, it's because they're fucking morons seeking something to be outraged about.

Shit, wait a minute. I saw a teabagger holding a protest sign that had Obama's face on it. I can't believe it, but that means Obama must be a teabagger.

[seabeyond]

57. no shit, they will use it being a piece of shit. what the repug party is, a piece of shit

is that really new? do you think any politician would allow their name associated with peta? not a one. and there is reason. and peta took the choice away.... purposely, well aware what they were doing.

[SteveM]

85. You bring up a good point about "shitting all over democrats." Anybody can do that...

When a party or individuals in it (including Obama) are perceived as weak and directionless, any outfit can swoop in for a bite of carrion. It should say something that PETA can be that big a force in a DU thread, and even appears to be muscling in on a fading national spot light when they can pull a stunt with Michelle Obama's clothing. (Why, she can deny or agree, but PETA's there with all the camera flashes!)

I think the appeal PETA has is based on their celebro-spectaculars and well-coiffed, well-financed guerrilla theater; it certainly has an appeal to some who feel impotent, given the current political climate. They can just tune or enter-in a PETA demonstration and feel like they are on the front line (the digital age has many illusions).

PETA's days of influence may be in decline: like the gun-control lobby, they depend heavily on a totally biased MSM; PETA has even had editorial space in major dailies. But like gun-control, the halcyon days are over: MSM is going down faster than the Lusitania. Now, they must face its nominal competitor, the Humane Society of the United States and its $100 million budget and high-quality ads in TV markets everywhere. Folks who still watch this stuff will compare: HSUS looks a lot less embarrassing than PETA.

[Ignis]

14. Good for her!

I hadn't realized that the First Lady was fur-free until this PR campaign from PETA. But further research reveals the following:

"Mrs. Obama does not wear fur," Mrs. O's deputy press secretary Semonti Mustaphi confirmed.

-- Wash. Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/green-and-glover-undercover-86626247/

Dear Mrs. Obama: :yourock:

[Drum]

30. Oh, PETA? What about the ethical treatment of people? n/t

[seabeyond]

32. the woman that runs it says.... fuck people. and dems, and women, and blacks. nt

[SPedigrees]

33. That about sums up Ingrid Newkirk's twisted attitude.

Or whatever her name is...it's not worth my time to look it up. Raking in the bucks from duped supporters is what PETA stands for, when they're not bombing laboratories and poisoning dogs at dog shows.

[superduperfarleft]

40. When the hell has PETA ever done any of what you've just claimed.

I've seen a lot of batshit insane claims about PETA on here, but that just takes the cake.

[seabeyond]

45. kkk demonstrations, slap to blacks. fucking veggies, slap to women. assoc michelle to peta

fuck the dems

[superduperfarleft]

47. Yeah, but poisoning pet shows and blowing up labs?

You know, it's possible to make your point without making shit up.

And trust me, your "fuck the dems" thing is a real reach.

[seabeyond]

50. i said nothing about blowing up shit.... dont even need to do research into the other crap they are

accused of. there is already enough crap to dislike this org

and there is NO reach with the fuck dem comment. it is the reality. and they know damn well what they are doing. you think they are so fuckin clueless they dont know that there is no way in hell obama would put his name with this org?????

a BIG fuck dems

[superduperfarleft]

55. Hoo-kay.

:backs away slowly:

You know, sometimes I see you make great points, and other times you're borderline incoherent.

[seabeyond]

61. peta does something unethical, dishonest and irresponsible and you defend.

you like the cause. i get that. the org is more than worthless, they damage the cause.

simple enough.

why in the world anyone would back and org that works so hard to hurt their own cause makes no sense to me.

[superduperfarleft]

63. I loathe PETA. That's what's wrong with binary thinking, which DU is evidently full of.

And I'm not so brain-addled that I think they did this to deliberately hurt Democrats. I've known many PETA employees over the years, and while most of themselves consider themselves politically liberal, absolutely none of them give a damn about Dem vs. R when it comes to planning their campaigns.

[seabeyond]

66. they did it deliberately knowing any dem would not want to be associated with their extreme org

and why no dem would be associated with their extreme org.

they didnt do it to hurt dems. they said fuk you dems, know why you wouldnt want this association and i dont give a shit.

it is an i dont give a shit to blacks
i dont give a shit to women

[superduperfarleft]

68. Um, no they didn't. And you should probably back away from the keyboard.

You sound unhinged.

[seabeyond]

69. then are you telling me they are so clueless, that they think it is really a good thing to associate

michelle with their org. that they are so very stupid, they dont understand the problem it would cause the president having michelle look like a part of their org?

[superduperfarleft]

71. I thought "clueless" was what I've been saying this entire time.

For starters, I doubt this will become a "problem" for Michelle. And secondly, yes, that is exactly what I've been arguing, that it didn't even occur to them that this would become a Dem vs. R issue. I'm glad you finally understood.

[seabeyond]

75. i guess they are such dingbats they dont get KKK may offend the blacks and others

that walk by them on ny streets? and that women may be offended when watching a commercial of naked women fucking veggies?

if these people are so very stupid not to know that putting michelle on their cover without her permission will cause them problems, they dont belong in the org fighting a just cause.

obama had to disassociate himself and michelle already. they ALREADY caused them a problem.

[SteveM]

87. I used to keep the hard copy around, but an incident in Virginia...

where two "contract" employees of PETA were arrested for killing over 100 puppies and kittens with sodium pentathol (sp?) in the back of a van. Allegedly, the two gathered up the animals from shelters with the subterfuge that they had homes for them. Since most shelters are over-crowded, they were only glad to give them up. Later, the animals were found in a dumpster. The two were tried on charges of cruelty to animals, and possession of a controlled substance. They were found not guilty of the cruelty charge (well, the puppies and kittens DID die in the normal fashion). What happened with the drug charge, I don't know. Newkirk's response was in effect: we are sorry that the animals were... dumped in someone else's dumpster; that is not our policy.

NOTE: one of the many advantages of "contract" labor, besides no need to provide insurance, benefits, retirement, etc., is it provides a "corporate veil," preventing civil action to connect "contractors" with the parent company, in this case PETA.

[superduperfarleft]

88. Well, yeah, that happened.

Despite the fact that most of the shelters from where the two PETA employees got the animals "euthanize" with a .22 or in a gas box, and sodium pentathol is a much kinder way to day, those employees were out of line, so they were fired/disciplined (I don't remember which), but they were found not guilty in court of animal cruelty. That incident is no secret.

You still need to back up bombing laboratories and poisoning animals at dog shows, though.

[SteveM]

93. This incident falls into line with PETA's attitudes toward "pets" & pet ownership.

It is possible that the incident not only reflects PETA's philosophy, but is a structural part of it.

I do not need to "back up bombing laboratories and poisoning animals at dog show." I didn't make the charge.

Incidentally, a few days ago, my local paper (Austin American Statesman) reported that U.S. Global Exotics in Arlington, had 23,000 animals seized in a raid. I don't like this kind of business, but the company's attorney Lance Evans charges a Howard Goldman, "undercover investigator," would "...let snakes go for weeks without food, water or clean cages and instead secretly took photos and made daily reports for PETA." Goldman says "the company's owners wouldn't pay for things such as food and medical supplies." No word on whether or not Goldman was employed by PETA, or whether or not Global was indeed miss-treating animals. Case pending.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram may be the paper to follow as the judge in this case will decide who gets custody of the animals.

[superduperfarleft]

95. The abolition of breeding animals for human ownership is, of course,

a central part of animal rights theory. Euthanizing completely healthy animals is most certainly not, which is where PETA goes wrong. But conjuring up nefarious images of PETA SWAT teams breaking down your door and stealing your dog is asinine, which is what those who list their interests as "pets" constantly attempt to do.

As far as the snake case, I've only marginally followed it, but it's not exactly groundbreaking that an attorney for the company accused of cruelty to attempt to defame the whistleblower.

And you're correct as far as the "back up," I didn't check poster names before I said that.

[SteveM]

145. No problem. And you are right about attorney role-reversal...

I am not convinced that breeding animals for human ownership is all bad, but I certainly see the abuses. We had in our family wonderful and well-cared-for dogs which were great at retrieving downed ducks. But they were gifts from an old South Carolina family which bred and cared-for many generation of Labradors. Certainly, there is the problem with in-breeding, but otherwise, no great harm came to these dogs.

I do not like fly-by-night mills which sell animals out of a trunk, promoting them as "papered" or "pure bread." Perhaps the standards for breeding could be raised, but should they prove too onerous, expensive and punitive, road-side sales will be encouraged. But if higher standards go to the problems associated with mills, many unscrupulous breeders could be forced out of the trade, and at the same time not threaten conscientious breeders; in fact, these breeders may become allies in the effort to shut down mills. This would lessen the harm to animals, but not meet the "ideal" of this central tenet of animal rights theory.

Outright bans on breeding would meet stiff opposition from serious breeders and may very well open up another front in the culture wars.

[Fire1]

125. Thanks for the info. I had a feeling these folks were loons. n/t

[Ignis]

129. Rick Berman thanks you for keeping him well paid. (nt)

[Fire1]

130. And who might Rick Berman be?? n/t

[Ignis]

132. He's the guy paid to shill the "PETA kills animals" message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berman

He also gets paid well to shill for other oh-so-progressive causes, like fighting the minimum wage, downplaying the dangers of mercury levels in fish, busting unions, fighting against having non-smoking sections in restaurants, raising the legal blood-alcohol limit while driving, etc.

Info on Berman from SourceWatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:_clients_exposed
And info on Berman's org CCF from SourceWatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
More info from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24sun3.html?_r=1

Isn't it great to see Berman's paid campaigns being promoted at DU as truth? :puke:

[seabeyond]

133. isnt it great to see racism and sexism and unethical behavior promoted on du? nt

[SPedigrees]

114. Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA...to fund his legal defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

The group has also been criticized for providing financial support to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activists when they were faced with legal action against them. The Observer noted what it calls a "network of relationships between seemly unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic," writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds individual activists and activist groups, some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat.<46><47>

Ingrid Newkirk on clashes with other animal rights organizations and her feelings about the Animal Liberation Front. Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA, and two months later another $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, when he was convicted of having set fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992.

This article lists links. This story was run by major news networks back in 1992.

Poisoning of dogs at dog shows and turning horses loose at equestrian events (to run into busy thorough fares endangering the horses and motorists) - these things I know first hand as a frequent competitor and attendee at such events.

[superduperfarleft]

120. So Rod Coronado wasn't entitled to a legal defense?

Where's the proof that Rod Coronado was a PETA member? Furthermore, simply providing legal defense funds doesn't mean they "fund the ALF," and if you bothered to educate yourself as to the nature of the ALF, you'd know that, as an organization, it's IMPOSSIBLE to fund, as they are even more loosely organized than al-Qaeda. In fact, I think "organization" might even not be the right word for the ALF, since they consist solely of autonomous cells which rarely even operate past one or two actions.

As far as your poisoning crap, you're a liar. I feel 100% confident in saying so. I've heard first-hand many of the (true) horrible things that PETA has done, and that's a new one.

[SPedigrees]

135. Try reading the article and its supporting links.

----Where's the proof that Rod Coronado was a PETA member?---

Where did anyone say he was? He's a member of ALF, he firebombed a lab, and PETA rushed to his defense with thousands donated by members who intended the $$ be used to improve the lives of animals.

Do you really think highly of a group who supports terrorists? If so that is sad. Myself I donate to animal WELFARE groups who actually devote their resources to work via public education, caring for homeless animals, and supporting legislation to promote the humane treatment of all domestic animals. PETA and other animal RIGHTS groups are not about this; they have their own batshit agenda.

And if you have not heard of dogs being poisoned by PETA members, you clearly have no associations with dog show exhibitors. I am not a liar, and this is old news to anyone who exhibits dogs or horses.

[superduperfarleft]

136. More binary thinking, although it's predictable from your type.

Where did I say that I supported PETA? In fact, I've said numerous times in this thread that I most decidedly DON'T support PETA. Defending them from ridiculous smears about their members committing arson and poisoning animals at dog shows does not mean I support them, it just means I don't like liars or idiots.

You implied PETA members were running around blowing up labs. Your own evidence, or lack thereof, proves you wrong.

And as a supporter of animal RIGHTS, not animal WELFARE, I really don't care who you and your yuppie cat-fancy crew gives their spending money to. It's abundantly clear that your oh-so-overwhelming concern for animals stops when they go from being "pets" to being "food." Offended? Maybe you could apologize for maligning the very logical reasons many members of this very board have for supporting the concept of animal rights by dismissing it as "batshit."

And as far as PETA members poisoning animals, that's a crime, so I'm sure you'll have a link, police reports, news stories, etc.

[Ignis]

78. "bombing laboratories and poisoning dogs at dog shows" ANY PROOF?

Or are you just, you know, making shit up for the cheap seats?

[SPedigrees]

117. See post #114. nt

[superduperfarleft]

121. We asked for proof, not unsourced and misinterpreted bullshit. n/t

[Ignis]

124. Sure, but shouldn't you support your claim?

Nice post, #114. It's always heartening to read about people helping those born without a silver spoon to find adequate legal representation in our pay-for-justice system.

But what about your earlier claim that PETA bombs labs and poisons dogs at dog shows? Still no proof there, other than this fantastical (if not farcical) anectote?

Poisoning of dogs at dog shows and turning horses loose at equestrian events (to run into busy thorough fares endangering the horses and motorists) - these things I know first hand as a frequent competitor and attendee at such events.

I, too, have been to numerous equestrian events--thanks to a girlfriend who did competitive ghymhana--and I've never, ever seen PETA turn loose a horse...let alone into busy traffic.

As for poisoning dogs at dog shows, that should be awfully easy to find a link or a newspaper clipping about such a horrible crime, no? Perhaps a police report? Anything?

So, I'll ask again: Any proof for your claims?

[SPedigrees]

36. Old ladies in fur coats are the sort of target PETA loves to attack.

But you won't see PETA declaring war on leather clad bikers.

[Brickbat]

38. Right on.

[Ikonoklast]

53. Skinny models, New York socialites, and others that are targeted like that by PETA

won't knock your front teeth out with a ball peen hammer when you throw paint on them.

[Fire1]

126. One "tried" it with me and got that card torn up and thrown in

her face. Haven't seen her ass since.

[spanone]

37. if they didn't have permission, they are really ignorant of law, or just don't care

[anonymous171]

39. I like fur. It's warm. nt

[hlthe2b]

80. I like fur---permanently attached to my doggy girl.....

Now THAT is warm...

[Toasterlad]

43. PETA Has Never Been Exactly What You'd Call "Ethical".

[varelse]

51. It is impolite of them not to ask for permission (nt)

[Karmadillo]

59. Imagine how angry people would be if PETA used public funds to bail out Wall Street or

botched health care reform or decided to give Bush/Cheney a pass or killed innocents in a criminal war.

[Ignis]

81. "Oh, that's just BUSINESS, you know!"

:thumbsup:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

83. Tough. The first lady doesn't own her image in a political context

[proteus_lives]

84. Pull the ads.

[LynneSin]

91. Is that even Tyra Bank's body?

her face looks photoshopped on that picture. Her jaw looks like someone sucked half of it up in a vacuum cleaner

[Javaman]

92. That's some pretty failed logic on their part...

"organization wouldn't have sought Mrs. Obama's consent for the anti-fur ad because it knows that she can't make such an endorsement."

So they choose instead to put words, they think she would say, in her mouth.

well played PETA, well played. :eyes:

I think the phrase, "what a bunch of fucktards" comes to mind.

[Ignis]

97. Except she DID say it, albeit through a spokesperson.

See post #14.

[Javaman]

98. That is still not her. Not a direct quote. nt

[Ignis]

100. Then she should fire her spokesperson.

But how is that PETA's fault? :shrug:

[snooper2]

99. PETA is right up there with MADD

It's all about keeping the money flowing in so they can have their little empire and salaries all while promoting their "noble" cause...