Got Pets? PeTA doesn't want you to.
I saw this today, and something just wilted inside me, and one of my long-standing "hot buttons" was triggered. I thought, "Not only have the hoodwinked another one, but this time it's someone I like!" (Click image to enlarge) I doubt very seriously that David Boreanaz, or any of the other celebrities who shill for PeTA (often posing with their precious pets), have any idea of the organization's true agenda concerning companion (and food, working, guide/assistance and medical research, etc.) animals, or of their well-established ties to terrorist organizations such as the ALF and SHAC. What David probably doesn't know is that, if PeTA's full agenda ever came to fruition, he wouldn't have his cute pet dogs, or any to replace them--ever. Paul McCartney wouldn't have his beloved Appaloosa horses, or Charlize Theron her big, huggable-looking dog pal. While often the PeTA surface messages are appealing, and reasonable (like the Boreanaz ad--be nice to your doggy), what lies behind them is a much larger agenda--the END of domesticated animals, period.
For a really excellent (though profanity-laden; you've been warned!! Big-time cursewords abound, but the content is worth it!) video clip that explains the pertinent facts precisely, see this clip from Penn & Teller's HBO show, "Bull****". And here are some direct quotes from PeTA President and Co-Founder, Ingrid Newkirk. You can find much more at this site and several others like it:
"There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation." [emphasis added]- “Animal Rights 2002” convention (June 30, 2002)
And just a few more of my favorites:
"There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals."
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."
"I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."
And one that involves medical research, not pets, but that I couldn't resist tossing it in because it is SO especially offensive to me:
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."
The message I'd leave you with is, even if it's supported by someone you like very much (how could you not educate yourself, my Angel?), PLEASE learn the difference between groups who work hard to promote animal WELFARE (rescues, shelters, etc.) and groups whose concern is animal RIGHTS. There is a big difference. If you want money to go toward bettering the quality of life of animals, please don't give it to PeTA or the HSUS. Give it to someone who actually cares about the animals, instead of their own political agenda.
Off soapbox now, more silly stuff tomorrow, I promise.