PETA'S way of having "skin in the game". All eyes on PETA!
Posted on 11/07/2009 6:50:38 AM PST by Kaslin
In an ironic twist, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also treats its employees like so much meat. And it doesn’t even pay them for the privilege. A recent story in the Style section of The Washington Post described life for a PETA intern in the nation’s capital. Sometimes it merely involves dressing up in a chicken suit -- perhaps one left over from a presidential campaign (“I’ll debate my opponent anywhere, unless he’s chicken…”).
But life also involves crass displays of exhibitionism, such as the day a pair of “PETA beauties” shared an outdoor shower on Pennsylvania Ave. “They languidly wash each other with cruelty-free soap and ignore heckles from the growing crowd,” wrote Post reporter Monica Hesse. But why ignore it? Embrace it, if not each other. After all, the very point of using naked women is to draw a crowd.
“All the men here are so skeezy, snapping pictures with their cellphones, pretending to read the literature given to them by Line Moeller, another PETA intern who is wearing a teeny terry cloth robe,” the story adds. But being attracted to naked young women is simple evolution. Of course male passersby are drooling at the women, just as they’d be drooling if someone walked by with a big slab of sizzling Kobe beef. Millennia of human experience have taught us that meat is good. The same thing can be said of naked young women. You can fight evolution if you want: for example, by becoming a vegan. But you can’t change human nature.
The interns are learning, too. One, 18-year-old Kelsey Jaye, explains she enjoys her work. “It’s great to be able to use your body as a tool,” she says. What a wonderful message for the youth of America. Maybe PETA should also also teach Jaye she needs to stay in school, at least until she can “use” her body to land her Mrs. degree?
Looks are, of course, important. “The PETA interns have beautiful skin and lovely teeth,” the newspaper story says. “They have shiny hair and the buzzy energy that comes, they’d say, from avoiding animal products and animal byproducts.”
Well, of course the vegans would say that their health comes from not eating meat, just as a religious person will always insist that “all good things come from God.” The flip side of the coin is that the vegans would also ignore anything bad that might come from their lifestyle choice. If, for example, they tire easily, they’d never think it might be because they don’t get enough protein in their diet; they’ll just assume tiredness is a fact of life. The fact is that lots of us enjoy meat, and also have “shiny hair” and “buzzy energy.” We just don’t like taking showers on the sidewalk.
There are problems with the food supply in this country, as anyone who’s read Michael Pollan’s book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” can tell you. But PETA’s approach -- banning anything it doesn’t like -- isn’t the answer. The problem is that bad food -- chips, soda, drive-in cheeseburgers -- is cheaper than healthy food: fruits, veggies, lean meat.
In large part, that’s because the federal government prevents a free market from operating. By guaranteeing a minimum price for corn, for example, Washington encourages farmers to plant that crop on every square acre of land available. So there’s always too much corn, and it gets turned into everything: high fructose corn syrup, McDonald’s Happy Meals, cattle feed and so forth. That distorts the entire food chain.
The answer would be to repeal all farm subsidies. Doing so would save Uncle Sam at least $20 billion per year, according to a report by University of California, Davis Professor Daniel Sumner. Prices would change, but people would be able to start responding to the laws of supply and demand. Free choice is the answer. For example, many people have voluntarily changed their eating habits after reading Pollan’s book.
In the end, even if we all gave up meat, it would never be possible to please the PETA people. There will always be something for the 18-year-olds of this world to protest. “Think of the silkworm,” the Post implores. “Nobody ever thinks of the silkworm. PETA thinks of the silkworm.”
No, thanks. I’d rather think for myself.
Lot of truth to this article. ;)
“Think of the silkworm,” the Post implores. “Nobody ever thinks of the silkworm. PETA thinks of the silkworm.”
Think of the potato, shreiking in pain and terror as it is ripped from its warm earthen home. Think of the carrot, cruelly torn up from the ground to feed your vegan face. Think of the soybean, cut down in its prime to provide you with the oh-so-tasty tofu.
Think of the cotton boll, suffering unimaginable tortures as it is combed, spun, woven, cut and sewn into garments to clothe your vegan body.
Who hears the cries of the oppressed vegetables? mrs. a does. That is why she wears leather and eats meat, meat and more meat.
PETA'S way of having "skin in the game". All eyes on PETA!
The bigger question is why aren’t they arrested. Last I checked, public nudity is still illegal in Washington.
The author claims to dislike PETA’s methods, yet he takes the opportunity to promote their gospel.
Very true...must have seen "King Korn". On the other hand all that money being freed up by being able to buy cheap food enabled us to have extra money to buy stuff like cars, tv's, and other consumer luxury items. Ending the subsidies will make all food more expensive in the short run for sure.
Not if they cut the price supports, crop reductions, and import restrictions at the same time. There are myriad products for which the government works both to increase and to decrease the price at the same time. It seems that letting supply and demand function has as much chance to produce a satisfactory equilibrium.
It is not that PETA doesn’t believe that meat isn’t good for them.
It is not that they try to convince me not to eat meat.
It is that they would pass laws that would force the rest of us to stop eating meat if they could.
And primarily those tacky clear plastic belts sold in the 70’s are just ugly.
I agree but even if they did it's going to take time for these things to come to equilibrium and it's going to be more expensive in the short run for sure.
I'D HIT IT.
I disagree. I think some foods would be more expensive and some less expensive, depending on what ingredients they contained and how people varied their purchases as prices fluctuated.
Who decides what is bad food, and what is good food?
I do, at least for me. I LIKE cheeseburgers, chips and sodas--not everyday, but they taste good to me.
Taste is up to each person. I'll be damned if someone forces me to eat this over that based on their--not mine--beliefs.
Lean meat can be good, but there's no meat tastier, imho, than a juicy, fat marbled, cooked rare prime rib or porterhouse steak.
Again, if you think that is unhealthy, don't eat it. Just leave MY plate alone. It's not your place or business.
You are truly a hero to plant life everywhere. I try to do my part by insisting on plastic bags over bags made from the corpses of murdered trees. God bless the grass, by Circe.
Save a cabbage...eat a pig!
I’m of the opinion that the total scrapping of price supports, crop reduction and import restrictions and the entire government agricultural manipulation apparatus from FDR on up would be great for everyone, especially farmers.
A great article in the WSJ from last year went into detail as to how the tobacco growers are faring ever since tobacco was taken off the taxpayer teat. No subsidies and no growing restrictions. Suddenly, anyone can grow tobacco anywhere in the country anyway they want at their own risk. The article explained that tobacco is now being grown in states where it’s been banned for 60+ years and farmers are realizing a much better profit.
It was made plain that there’s no conceivable reason this cannot be applied across the board and that with subsidy farming ended the family farmer would probably make a comeback. Add to that the benefit of no more govt-surplus grain and cheese being dumped on third-world nations to the demolition of their own agriculture.
That said, I have no doubt that there will always be an endless supply of young women willing to show off their T&A for the cause. I recently read Laura Sessions Stepp’s “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both” as well as university psychiatric counselor Miriam Grossman’s “Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student” as well as the works of Wendy Shalit and it’s downright amazing how MTV culture and campus PC practically brainwash young women into believing casual sex and exhibitionism are right and proper and expected of them.
I agree with all paragraphs!
...” it’s downright amazing how MTV culture and campus PC practically brainwash young women into believing casual sex and exhibitionism are right and proper and expected of them.”...
The complete list of things that young and older women are brainwashed into believing is, in my opinion, much broader than just the two mentioned in the above quote and some of the brainwashing happens by being in close proximity to feminist moms, aunts, grannies, cousins, friends, police, the legal sysytem, professional circles, corporate policies, etc., etc., etc.
Bottom line: Don’t fall in love, guys...unless you can convince her that you’re more in love with her than she can be with herself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.