Battle of Hypocrisy

PETA is apparently mad at Al Gore. Y’see, in PETAworld, eating meat causes global warming because cow farts contribute more to global warming than cars. Of course, PETA cites a UN report as the basis for the cow farts are bad factoid, so I’m taking this with a shaker or 12 of salt. I know when I think objective and disinterested science, I think United Nations and PETA. Two great tastes that go great together! Much like shit and piss, I s’pose.

Anyhow, I can’t bring myself to care what PETA thinks about anything. Let’s examine the name, shall we? The big word we should be keying on is Ethical. Hell, what does PETA say about animals?

PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans.

Except when animals aren’t useful to PETA, PETA euthanizes them and throws them in dumpsters. So much for deserving to have their best interests taken into consideration, huh, guys? PETA is like most, if not all, hardcore ideologues. They’re interested in the theoretical welfare and treatment of animals in general. The actual welfare of any particular animal? Not really a big concern. In this respect, PETA is much like the communism of old. Communism was (and is) the classic example of bad thinking in this regard. Commies were always aiming at the utopian future when everything will be shiny and bright and didn't care what they had to do to get there, and if they had to drive the bus over you to get there, too damned bad for you. Your sacrifice is justified for the glorious future. Since all any of us have is the here and now, it's a bullshit approach. If you’re not making a positive difference in the short-term, maybe it’s time to rethink what you’re doing.

If PETA wanted to actually make a difference in actual animal welfare, they'd be running no-kill rescue operations. But that's hard work and involves dealing with animals that aren't fluffy and cuddly and photogenic and cute. The animals tend to be sick, grumpy, and in pain and need lots of care and attention that involves contact with copious amounts of bodily fluids. Let's face it, we all know that ain't fun especially when you're getting minimum wage or volunteering for it. It's a hell of a lot easier to jack the critters full of barbiturates, throw them in a dumpster, and justify it by saying, "Someday, we won't have to do this because we'll all be enlightened animal companions." The 20,000 or so house pets that ended up dead didn't mind giving their all so PETA had enough cash to run another ad campaign, did they? Of course, we can’t exactly ask what they thought, seeing as how dead critters tell no tales. Me, I’m a wee tad bit suspicious.

Of course, PETA is battling ManBearPig the ardent environmentalist. ManBearPig firmly believes that if he pays someone else to use less carbon, he can keep burning those fossil fuels willy-nilly. Since this approach fails spectacularly if everybody tries doing it, it’s hard to reconcile your desire for the big house and extravagant lifestyle with claims of environmentalism. After the news of his energy consumption, I could point out that if you ask everybody to cut back on their lifestyle, you should probably step up and be first. I’m sure the legions of fawning sycophants will have some half-assed claim as to why his behavior is justified and I should listen to his inane prattling. Remember kids, always think globally and act hypocritically. If you have wealthy parents, you can go far in life by doing so, even if you don’t have any real job skills.

I’m going to lump both PETA and ManBearPig in the class of ardent hypocrites and let the best hypocrite win. In the meantime, I’ll continue to feel free to ignore whatever asshat proclamations either comes up with about how to live my life.