LAST

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Doesn't every neighborhood enjoy the looming presence of a secretive international organization funded by celebrity devotees who even strip to promote its agenda?

 

Frightened artist's conception of the PETA headquarters monolith:

 

Sunny photo of the headquarters building:

 

PETA's notoriously oversexed image machine

PETA's austere, secure headquaters building aside, PETA itself can be downright touchy-feely. Or, at least, it's image can. It's what's inside — or at least under the underwear — that counts, right?

Meet PETA's "Lettuce Ladies." Eat your cholesterol-clogged heart out, Hooters. And check out the prodigious veggie dogs!

 

Playboy "bunny" necklaces are a nice touch:

 

Naked celebrity hotties galore:

 

What a buncha ___! (fill in the blank after further reading)

The idea is great (treating animals ethically), and hey, if you gotta show a lotta skin to make the point, the more the better, right? PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk definitely makes a good argument for PETA's cause. Yes, our sentient fellow beings absolutely do deserve to be treated ethically by us!

But let's put it this way about PETA: "Mistakes" have been made in the, shall we say, execution of the namesake "ethical trteatment." For example, when a PETA worker stole a small pet dog from a poor immigrant family's porch, and murdered it the same day (to use the ethical vernacular).

Fortunately, PETA operatives were caught on video camera stealing the immigrant family's dog — ironic, since PETA itself is notorious for conducting undercover video sting operations. To make up for any inconvenience, PETA perhaps less than thoughtfully delivered a fruit basket to the grieving family.

The local sheriff arrested the overzealous PETA petknappers, but charges were soon dropped. A dastardly deed done by the minions of a big organization with plenty of lawyers goes unpunished?

Maya, the chihuahua whom PETA workers claimed they mistook for a marauding "danger to livestock":

Meanwhile, Maya's family is suing PETA, which has characterized the lawsuit as "a money grab against a charity that had been called in to help a community."

A poor immigrant family trying to shake down the consummate international animal do-gooders orgnization? So who was it that grabbed Maya, then snuffed her the same day? And why?!

In our legal system, aren't lawsuits the only means people have to hold big corporations and other big organizations accountable? Aren't large monetary awards the only way to chastise them for callous abuses?

Maybe it's possible to have a grand ethical worldview, but be something less than ethical in everyday actions. Perhaps PETA's Ingrid Newkirk should have taken a lesson from the Japanese corporate apology model. Not just some appropriate groveling and bowing — maybe some sackcloth and ashes swould have been a nice touch, too — but also some judicious high-up salary cuts. But no, bring in the slick lawyers, get charges dropped, oh, and throw in a fruit basket for good measure.

 

Lawsuit Settled

$500 fine for killing Maya without honoring the legal waiting period

$49,000 to the family of Maya

$2,000 forced donation to the SPCA in honor of Maya

Undisclosed legal expenses to prevent having to pay more (fast-talking lawyers don't come cheap)

Unknown public relations costs

The cost of a fruit basket

That's how much PETA ends up paying for killing Maya.

Enough to keep PETA from doing anything that unconsciounable again?

 

Monkey Business

PETA sues to protect this selfie-taking fellow's photographic copyrights:

On appeal, court orders PETA to pay attorney's fees of the human photographer whose camera was comandeered.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges not happy with PETA

 

 

MowbrayArch.com

 

 

 

 

Last Up Next