Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Martha Stewart on Fur
I don't usually go for these short posts, but sometimes I get particularly inspired. Courtesy of PETA, Martha Stewart hosts a very grim but even-tempered five-minute informational film in which she renounces fur and describes (with plenty of supporting footage) where it comes from. Various methods of animal killing are shown; if you wear fur, you may want to reconsider after seeing this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you about fur. However, before you jump on the PeTA bandwagon, try typing "PETA hypocrisy" into Google.
Yeah, yeah...PETA is probably the most maligned lobbying group in history -- and also one of the most effective.
I read an excellent profile of PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk in the New Yorker (unfortunately, it's not online) a year of so ago and it really raised my appreciation of the group. It pointed out that the treatment of animals has improved dramatically over the last twenty-five years, as has the general awareness of the cruelty of the animal breeding/testing industry, and PETA deserves the lion's share of the credit. They're powerful enough that when they take on an issue (such as the mistreatment of chickens by KFC), companies in their sights quake in their boots and often have to change their behavior almost immediately.
Newkirk can be an abrasive weirdo, but she's done more to stop animal cruelty than anyone else in history. And that's okay by me.
They've moved from lobbying to terrorism, that's why they're "effective."
The ends do not justify the means.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Terrorism is:
NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Other than their brief foray into public dumping of red paint on fur wearers (which was more symbolic than violent), I don't believe PETA threatens people or property. If they did, they wouldn't have so many celebrities endorsing them and working with them.
So I have to disagree with anonymous' assessment. Perhaps you're confusing PETA with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which uses expressly non-violent but often illegal tactics to help expose and end animal suffering?
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Doesn't just apply to governments.
PETA does act irresponsibly, failing to take a balanced and researched approach to issues. The result is harm when the humans under attack by PETA are wrongfully harmed.
Collateral damage I guess.
Post a Comment