-
The Latest Population Bomb
April 2, 2009 | 78 comments
-
“It’s Not About the Money”
March 23, 2009 | 136 comments
-
The Economics of Quicksand
January 30, 2009 | 5 comments
-
Czarist America
December 12, 2008 | 14 comments
-
Change We Can’t Believe In
November 17, 2008 | 7 comments
Another Perspective
In Praise of PETA
An animal rights campaign that even PETA finds un-bear-able.
It isn’t often that card-carrying conservatives find anything People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has to say palatable. This, then, is a red-letter day as rightwingers and PETA are in full, er, bear hug mode over the sad case of Jim West, of British Columbia.
A bear recently attacked West after he inadvertently came between a mother bear and her cubs. The bear knocked him down repeatedly before he was able to grab a large stick and bludgeon it to death. In the attack, West suffered injuries that required 60 stitches. West had to kill the bear in self-defense.
End of story, right?
Wrong.
Since the attack, a different sort of vicious clawed beast has been attacking West: animal rights activists. Some activists pose as West and tell reporters that he killed the bear maliciously and wasn’t threatened at all.
Others call and harass him at home. “One woman asked me why I killed the bear and why I didn’t run away. Well, you can’t outrun a mother bear,” said West.
West is not unsympathetic to concerns about cruelty against animals. He said he regrets that he had to kill the bear but claims to have had no choice. Sixty stitches is pretty good evidence that the bear didn’t have West’s well-being in mind. Yet the harassment continues.
Since the start of the smear campaign, PETA has refused to add to West’s injuries. “We are absolutely not involved,” said PETA spokesman Martin Mersereau. “We focus our efforts on accomplishing things and this doesn’t fit in that category.”
What’s this? Common sense from a PETA point man? The group typically sets the bar for nutty animal rights activism. PETA wraps people up like steaks at the meat counter to protest eating meat. PETA demonstrators throw paint on people wearing fur.
PETA recently urged Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream to replace cow’s milk with human milk in producing ice cream. Ben & Jerry’s declined, thankfully.
How far off the reservation does an animal rights activist have to be to alienate PETA? When one is attacked by a bear, one should merely accept being mauled to death? Even PETA agrees, that’s downright un-bear-able.
Animal rights activists need to watch Stephen Colbert’s <I>Colbert Report</I>. The broadcaster and satirist has worked long and hard to expose the savage truth about bears. Bears are “actually Satan’s children,” says Colbert. They are “after our kids” because human children are “tender, juicy, you don’t even have to throw away the bones.”
Or maybe these activists were raised by bears.
In all seriousness, it is unfortunate that a man who successfully defended his own life now needs defending.
Animal rights activists have gone too far on this one. For the first time in its 28-year history even PETA finds itself on the side of sanity and common sense. Too bad it won’t last.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Heidenreich
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/22/in-praise-of-peta
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
james wilson| 10.22.08 @ 11:27AM
There is no "too far on this one" with PETA. It's all a mental disorder. Self-hatred is the qualification for entry, but they find solice for the barrenness of their souls in barren like-minds.
Paula Moore | 10.22.08 @ 4:17PM
Actually, “card-carrying conservatives” are increasingly finding common ground with PETA—and admitting that they have serious concerns about the way our society treats animals.
Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, argues that we have a responsibility to extend our considerations, and our compassion, to animals. His 2002 book, Dominion, asks why, if we are appalled by cruelty to a puppy, we regard with indifference the abuse of other intelligent, sensitive animals, such as those raised and killed for the table.
Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine has twice run cover stories about the abuse of farmed animals. G. Gordon Liddy, a longtime PETA supporter, recorded a radio ad informing listeners about the abhorrent abuses revealed during an undercover investigation of a drug-testing laboratory, where workers were caught on tape striking, choking, and taunting frightened and injured monkeys.
There is nothing partisan about compassion—and when you think about it, conservatives, who have as much heart as anybody, shouldn’t want there to be.
Sincerely,
Paula Moore, Senior Writer
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
PaulaM@peta.org
Red Neck| 10.22.08 @ 11:08PM
PETA doesn't care a whit about fracases between wild animals and people, if it's clear (in this case) that the initiative in the fracas was with the wild animal. Bears need a PETP.
Red Neck| 10.22.08 @ 11:09PM
Rather, I should say bears need a BETP (Bears for Ethical Treatment of People)
Kevin Dunn| 10.22.08 @ 11:39PM
Conrary to Paula Moore's letter, The Ammerican Conservative is not a conservative organ. It is a largely loony leftism under a false flag.
frost| 10.23.08 @ 8:08AM
Hear about the AFL nutcases who "freed" a lot of minks from their cases in Oregon? Of course, unable to fend for themselves, they were hit by cars, eaten by dogs and other critters; died in bunches. The AFL kooks don't care about the animals themselves, natutrally -- they were just trying to "make their statement," regardless...
Beneath contempt!
David| 10.23.08 @ 2:52PM
Obviously Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy aren't aware of PETA's hypocrisy in their treatment of animals at their own shelter at the PETA headquarters in Virginia. The American public needs to see the real Peta - see:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Peta has been killing almost all of the animals it takes into its shelter for quite a number of years now.
Peta is also disgusting in its opposition of the No Kill philosophy in today’s animal shelters.
Dean Chapel| 10.23.08 @ 7:45PM
PETA is not interested because there is no money to be made from this partcular story. If there was a way to make a dollar on this, PETA would be there in full disdain....
strandwolf| 10.24.08 @ 2:11PM
I would say that the PETA kills animals website is an astroturf grassroots scam. The reason that PETA puts any animals down is to end their suffering when there is no feasible alternative. There is a glut of unwanted pets...have you adopted one lately? If not, then I guess you don't really have much to stand on re hypocrisy.
Mark | 10.25.08 @ 10:10PM
There is nothing about conservative social or economic principles that contradicts with animal rights.
The point of animal rights is simply that, because the common thread in ethics is the opposition to causing harm, our attitude of assuming that the suffering of other animals is not to be taken seriously reveals a form of prejudice, similar to prejudices against groups of humans, called "speciesism" by philosophers, by analogy with racism and sexism.
If that sounds odd, think about it - we've all be taught to unthinkingly assume that there is something inherently special about humans. Once we rethink that assumption, it seems that PETA has something to its arguments - although way ahead of its time.
See the essay "All Animals Are Equal" by Peter Singer, which you can easily Google, and take a look at a well-sourced website, like PETA's MeetYourMeat.com.
(Oh, and the "PETA kills animals" stuff is just industry front groups trying to smear PETA precisely because PETA is so successful. PETA euthanized animals who were otherwise slated to be killed much more painfully at under funded animal shelters. Stop wasting time with that and take a look at the billions of animals who suffer for their entire lives - and whose lives PETA has been successful, and continues to work, to improve.)
Ken Roberts | 10.25.08 @ 10:36PM
So is o.k for the bear to kill humans now, are we to lay down and not fight back when something as big as a bear is gnawing at you hand or your face and the blood is running down your body into the dirt I would say that if any of these idiots were in the same position they would ask for a gun to shoot the bear instead of beating its brains in, my my how uncouth are we to bludgeon a bear to death . I liked to story about the protesters that tore down the fence and were trampled to death by some pigs , did they thank they would stop and say thanks for letting us free? The guy should have received congratulations on surviving the attack and killing the bear, who knows the bear may have been a rogue bear and killed some one down the road. By the way congratulations for surviving this attack by the bear , you may not be as lucky to survive the attack from the protesters.
Vanessa| 10.26.08 @ 3:08AM
The website 'Peta kills animals' is set up by a group who call themselves Center for Consumer Freedom who claim they are around to 'help consumers make informed decisions.' Would you like to know why they would try to smear reputable organizations such as Mother's Against Driving and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?
Consumer for Freedom Speech, ( CCF ), the ones behind the website Peta kills animals, is actually set up by the meat/alcohol/tobacco industries. They hide behind that name.
Anybody who would have the courage to stand up against the deceptive corrupt goons at the meat/alcohol/tobacco industries and have the courage to show the public who THEY really are, will be the ones those greedy industries will bad mouth and will do what they are experts at doing--and that is to deceptively brainwash the public.
By the way, Peta is cleaning up other people's irresponsibility by giving the animals they euthanize an easy peaceful death, which is a lot more than what anybody else has done, or will do, for the 5 million animals who die in U.S.shelters every year. That number does not even include the many animals who die from starvation, get hit by cars, who die at the hands of abusers, or the ones who horribly get sold to laboratories by people called 'bunchers' to be used in barbaric atrocious outdated tests.
Of course the cunning CCF will leave out these very important reasons of why the animals had to be peacefully put to sleep. In one word, the CCF 'sucks!'
Jeff| 11.9.08 @ 4:49PM
Yes Vanessa you are right! That deceptive organization spreading that bad gossip about PETA is nothing more and nothing less than the meat industry. Center for Consumer Freedom should really be called out for what they really are,Deceptive Money Hungry Lying Goons,that will say anything and everything for their own self interest.
Eric Heidenreich , the writer of this article please do not bad talk about an animal protection organization, that by the looks of your article, you know nothing about. I found this article to be very one sided and immature.
Patricia Milla| 11.15.08 @ 1:00AM
I JUST SIMPLY FIND SO WEIRD THAT WE MISTREAT ANIMALS, AND THAT THERE'RE NO LAWS TO STOP THIS.
BIZARRE!!!
US HUMANS, ARE REALLY MIXED UP!