Happy cows, desperate PETA
By Paul Walfield
web posted August 11, 2003
In the 21st century most people can be counted on to agree that any kind of cruelty or unethical treatment of animals is not only wrong, it has to be stopped. There are laws on the books in virtually every jurisdiction that makes it a criminal act, punishable with jail time for anyone being cruel to an animal. So, if you are an organization dedicated to the ethical treatment of animals, and well beyond your time as a useful enterprise, what do you do to keep those donations coming in? Pretty much anything that will get you publicity.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done some outrageous things in the name of getting more donations, so they can keep their jobs and organization viable. Things like writing and publicizing a letter to Yassir Arafat asking him to make sure that he sees to it that the next suicide bomber not set off his bomb near animals, and just aim to kill people. PETA is also famous for offering various cities across the globe $10 000 to $15 000 to change their name from Hamburg to a more vegetable sounding name. PETA people have even attacked Victoria Secret photo shoots.
The fact that people in general are not cruel to animals is causing quite a stir in PETAville and they are getting desperate. They tried having women pose nude to publicize the plight of nude women, or something or another, and that didn't go over too well. Then a great idea came to light among the PETAdites. They can't actually find genuine overt cruelty on a scale large enough to warrant anyone donating money to their cause so they need to create a stir worldwide about how chickens on a chicken farm owned or under the control of KFC were treated.
Everyone everywhere is sure to rise to the challenge of chicken discomfort. Famous people across the globe will demonstrate to show their solidarity with the little peckers. Chrissie Hynde of Pretender fame and of course who could forget her wishing that American soldiers would be slaughtered by the Iraqis, will lead the charge with her now immortal rallying cry, "They need to roost, damn it!" How peaceful a world it would be if everyone would only allow chickens to roost.
 Are cows happy? Only PETA knows... |
Now however an organization with PETA's expenses and no actual need for its existence must always have, if you will pardon the expression, something cooking. Searching the world over, the crack team of PETA investigators stumbled upon one of the most egregious and heinous displays of man's inhumanity to animals, the Happy Cow commercials.
Starting way back in 2002, the PETA people knew something was terribly amiss in the Golden State. Here were state sanctioned television commercials depicting computer generated dairy cows in a state of not unhappiness. How could this be? How could anyone in America, in the entire world for that matter, not know that any mammal, bird, insect or reptile when associated with humans be anything but as unhappy as the folks at PETA? Something needed to be done.
If Americans were to ever find out that animals, especially bovines, were in a mental state of being that didn't require the immediate issuance of a restraining order against their human captors, it could affect donations to their payrolls. That possibility could not be allowed to stand. Sue they must, and sue they did.
In December 2002, PETA filed a lawsuit demanding that the state of California cease their portrayal of animated cows as being happy. The slogan, "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California," must be eradicated from the TV screens and minds of potential donors, most of who, no doubt, come from California.
According to PETA, depicting cows on grassy hillsides is a far cry from their real life in muddy pens. PETA people know that cows living near mud are far less happy than cows living on dry hillsides. However, the PETA website explained that their lawsuit was dismissed saying, "Judge David Garcia of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, ruled that the government can't be sued for violations of these laws, no matter how egregious such violations may be."
The fact that the lawsuit was dismissed by the state of California really got the PETA people's blood boiling and they are as mad as a wet cat. So they filed an appeal to a higher court on July 29, 2003. If it is one thing the PETA guild will never let stand in their way is the sense that people's donations to their organization should just be used to actually help animals in need.
PETA's lawsuit and now their appeal are not geared to help anyone but the PETA organization. Like their willingness to spend thousands of dollars of their contributions to have small towns change their name, the only purpose they now seem to have is to perpetuate their own existence. As time goes by, their tactics and methods have become more and more bizarre and unfortunately destructive.
So what is next for PETA? We can just see it now. Charlie the Tuna will no longer be depicted as just being frustrated, rather he will be shown dangling from a hook surrounded by deceased dolphins. But why stop there?
Old Mighty Mouse cartoons will have to be reworked to show the plight of the little critter being used in laboratory experiments by evil biologists trying to find a cure for mere human diseases. And we can just forget about ever seeing Tony the Tiger in any milieu except to see him and his brethren trying to find a suitable habitat or wrapped around some non-existent but nevertheless advertised as real, spoiled celebrity's shoulders. And we can just forget about putting a tiger in our tank, as they need to be free and hunting villagers for fun.
It doesn't matter much to the PETA folks how we as decent people really
are, they need us to all believe everyone else is evil, cruel and in need
of a PETA lawsuit or boycott. The fact is, the only group that really should
be on the endangered species list is PETA. 
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and an attorney with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now practicing law and writing political commentary. Paul has his own website at www.usanewsandviews.com. Paul can be contacted at paul.walfield@usanewsandviews.com. © 2003 Paul Walfield All Rights Reserved.
Other related stories: (open in a new window)
- PETA � People
Exhibiting Terrible Attributes by Paul Walfield
(April 28, 2003)
Some things don't change. Over the past couple of months, writes Paul Walfield, PETA has been up to its old publicity seeking tricks - The terrorists you don't hear
about by Tom DeWeese(March 4,
2002)
News programs are awash with stories about terrorists since September 11, but Tom DeWeese wants to know why groups that have committed hundreds of terrorist attacks in the United States have received little press coverage lately - The Enlightenment under attack by Steven Martinovich (November
20, 2000)
Steve Martinovich reviews Deborah Rudacille's The Scalpel and the Butterfly, a history of animal experimentation and the people on both sides of the issue - Pestilential, preposterous PETA by Shelley McKinney (September
4, 2000)
Shelley McKinney takes on PETA and it's assaults on Rosie O'Donnell, Rudy Giuliani and Christianity. Have a hamburger while you're reading it
 Printer friendly version |
|