Where the hell does PETA get these ideas? And why didn't I think of this???

Have you heard the latest? This is too good to ignore!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants to lease the infamous Amityville Horror house on Long Island (which gained fame in the 1979 film The Amityville Horror) and convert it into - get this - "a slaughterhouse of horrors."

Who the hell at PETA comes up with these ideas?

And why the hell didn't I - a longtime horror movie fan (you'd never guess that I like all those blood and guts movies from my peacenik-esque posts on this Blog) - think of it?????

A PETA letter spelled out the organization's position on this matter:

The supernatural haunting that some people believe occurred in this building is legendary, but many people don't realize that if they are eating meat, eggs, and dairy products, they are getting their food from real-life horror houses - factory farms and slaughterhouses. (Source)

As Kevin Spacey's character Jack Vincennes said in L.A. Confidential: "Subtle." The PETA letter went on to say:

In our horror house, the sound of slaughterhouse blades whirring while animals scream for their lives would play over loudspeakers. Visitors would be able to see animatronic hens struggling for space inside tiny battery cages and lifelike "fish" gasping for air as they slowly suffocate on the deck of a fishing boat.

I don't remember any of this stuff in Disneyland's Haunted House.

No word yet on whether PETA is actually going to be able to lease the house. It would be really cool if they did. On the other hand, who would pay to go in such a ghastly haunted house? As I've said countless times in this Blog, the biggest enemy of animal advocates is denial. And I'm sure there won't be long lines of hardcore omnivores standing in line to see PETA's "slaughterhouse of horrors."

But you never know. The house became famous in 1974 after one of its inhabitants, Ronald De Feo, snapped and murdered his mother, father, two brothers and two sisters. Since then, allegations of paranormal activities inside the house (as well as allegations of over-imaginative attention seekers living inside the house) have dogged the place.

So fans of the paranormal who also happen to be omnivores might end up checking out the PETA house of horrors just to walk through the legendary Amityville House.

The Amityville Horror House (right) is now up for sale for $1.5 million. (Source) I guess we'll have to wait and see if PETA's creative attempt to scare the bejesus out of omnivores comes to pass.

Dude, whatever happens, I'm staying tuned!

Gary Francione's Scathing Indictment of PETA

I make no secret of the fact that I am a big PETA fan and a proud card-carrying member of the organization. I've also written columns and Blog entries in support of PETA. Nevertheless, I found Gary Francione's scathing critique of PETA compelling and troubling. I'm a huge Francione fan and this particular Blog Entry on his Abolitionist Approach Website left me deeply disturbed. In it, he cited a story about PETA that ran on AOL News stating that PETA

euthanizes over 90 percent of the dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats — 97 percent of those brought in — and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent.

Francione added:

I checked the documents that PETA filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and confirmed that the AOL story is correct. PETA killed 681 dogs and 1620 cats. PETA also killed 51 “other companion animals.”

That’s a total of 2352 animals.

And PETA adopted eight animals. Eight animals.

As Francione points out, PETA has a revenue of $31,053,316 and assets worth $19,759,999. Adopting eight animals, he concludes, is hardly impressive for such a powerful and wealthy organization.

I've heard other animal rights activists say similarly negative things about PETA. Francione also attacked PETA for giving an award to Temple Grandin for her "humane slaughterhouse" work (boy, those two words go together almost as well as "peaceful" and "war") and promoting the "happy meat" (or "conscientious carnivore") movement.

I have very mixed feelings about all of this. I am not going to run out and quit PETA tomorrow. At the same time, I think Gary Francione (and others like him) perform an invaluable service to the animal rights movement when they point out the contradictions and double standards in the struggle.

This movement has to be a broad front and we can't be too puritanical. Yet it becomes a problem when the movement compromises too much. It loses its meaning when it does.

But there is also a danger in being too reductionist about some of PETA's wrong-headed positions. Any organization that fights on as many fronts as PETA does is bound to stumble and make mistakes. I am deeply impressed and moved by the PETA literature I have read promoting veganism, attacking the factory farm system and supporting the most militant actions imaginable. PETA is not afraid to embrace radicalism. Moreover, our PETA comrades are on the front lines of so many vital struggles.

So I'll stay in PETA. But as a member, I will do what I can to try to change its policies so that all of its actions are consistent with a humanistic animal rights vision. Best to try to change it from within rather than abandon it altogether.

For PETA, the Price is Definitely Right

Animals have no closer friend among the humans than Bob Barker, former host of the long-running game show The Price is Right.

Ever since Barker retired from The Price is Right, he has been funding one animal rights project after another. Sometimes he gives so much that I worry the guy is going to run out of money for himself. But I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

In January, Barker gave $5 million to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to aid in the struggle against Japanese whaling.

Now Barker is generously donating $2.5 million to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to help finance the opening of its new office in Los Angeles.

I haven't been to it, but I hear it's a cool joint. PETA is calling it the Bob Barker Building. It's in a prime spot: Sunset Boulevard and Alvarado Street, right near Echo Park. The office will be a great location for PETA to maintain its struggle for the rights of all animals to live in peace and dignity.

As for Barker, he's 86 now and showing absolutely no signs of slowing down. The well-being of animals is his top priority. Something tells me this wonderful gent will be fighting for the animals when he's 101.

The Battle Over Lucy the Elephant Continues

For quite some time now, there has been a battle raging over an Asian elephant named Lucy who resides at the Valley Zoo in Edmonton, Alberta. Lucy has suffered from a whole host of health issues and has often been quite ill. She also lives alone and in conditions that many animal rights advocates believe are substandard.

The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is involved in a struggle to move Lucy to a more open sanctuary in a warmer climate. PETA has hired famed Toronto attorney Clayton Ruby to initiate a legal action against the city of Edmonton, claiming that Lucy lives in poor conditions in the zoo.

The case has been causing a lot of controversy. Bob Barker, former host of The Price is Right (pictured above with Lucy) even got in on the action, visiting Edmonton last September to ask zoo officials to let Lucy reside in a more open sanctuary.

Barker wasn't too thrilled with the outcome of his efforts. "The meeting went badly," he admitted. "The zoo is absolutely implacable. They won't consider even saying that when Lucy is feeling well that we can take her to the sanctuary."

PETA is launching its legal action against the zoo today. We'll see how it goes. A PETA press release reads:

Lucy's health issues--which include upper respiratory problems, arthritis, obesity, and chronic foot ailments--are the result of the substandard conditions at the Valley Zoo and are further aggravated by the region's frigid climate, which is ill-suited to an Asian elephant. Lucy has also been alone for the past two years, spends most of her time in a small barn, and exhibits behaviour that indicates severe psychological distress. Consultations with experts have convinced PETA and Zoocheck that Lucy's life is at risk in Edmonton, and no evidence has been presented to show that there is a greater than normal risk in moving her to a suitable sanctuary. Even Dr. James Oosterhuis, the Valley Zoo's own consultant, acknowledged that the zoo's indoor facilities fail to meet the industry's minimum standards. (Source)

It's impossible to say at this point how this case will turn out. Zoo officials say they're no longer allowing independent veterinarians to examine Lucy and they believe that if she's moved, the trauma of being uprooted will jeopardize her health.

Zoo veterinarian Dr. Milton Ness said:

To move her at the [limit] of her respiratory capacity, her ability to breathe . . . is tantamount to signing a certificate of her death. (Source)

Zoo and city officials have made it clear that they will not allow Lucy to be moved, so it looks like the matter is up to the courts to decide. Most observers concur that Lucy's poor health is at least partially due to neglect and poor treatment at the zoo.

It is difficult to take a stand on this issue in one direction or the other. Overall, I sympathize with the PETA position that Lucy should be moved to a warmer and healthier place. Lucy should not be living in substandard conditions. Yet it would be a tragedy if zoo officials are correct that Lucy would die as a result of being moved.

This case is simply a tragedy no matter how you look at it. One mantra that animal activists should be repeating over and over again is that animals are not our property to experiment on, transform into food or clothing, or use for entertainment purposes.

It's one thing to state this abolitionist view. But it's hard to know precisely what is best to help this one poor soul, a creature who happens to be one of the countless victims of a mindset, a culture, and a way of doing things that emphasizes that animals are ours to use and exploit as we please.

A Terrible Move All Around

Those of us who feel impassioned about animal rights should condemn - in no uncertain terms - the actions of the overzealous animal rights activist who threw a pie in the face of Canadian Federal Fisheries and Oceans Minister Gail Shea yesterday in Burlington Ontario. The act was apparently a protest against the seal hunt in Canada. A lot of good it did!

This sort of thuggish behaviour is unacceptable. It hurts our cause for two reasons:

# 1 - The most important reason: This movement - our movement - is about celebrating all life, and when someone throws a pie in the face of someone else, that kind of act of desperation and bullying requires that the pie thrower dehumanize the victim. Animal rights activists are not in the business of dehumanizing or bullying others or making them feel bad. We're in the business of reminding people - over and over again - that animals are not ours to abuse and exploit. Animals have dignity. A cornerstone of our movement ought to be nonviolence. We're trying to show people that there is a different, more humane way of living. What a contradiction, then, for a movement that stands for dignity and an end to the exploitation and mass murder of animals to resort to such a thuggish act as pie throwing.

# 2 - The second most important reason: An act like this one steers public attention away from the most important issue, and that is the violence that human beings engage in - on a massive and systematic and daily basis - against our fellow animals. The woman who tossed the pie, Emily McCoy, did a real disservice to the animal rights movement because now people are focused on what she did, not on the brutality of the seal hunt, which should have been banned long ago. Now a Liberal MP in Canada wants to investigate whether this pie-throwing incident was an act of terrorism. The real terrorism that the Canadian government should be investigating is the violent slaughter of seals, which is part and parcel of a larger human effort to exterminate large numbers of animals in what amounts to an unjustified and immoral mass murder. Thanks to McCoy, rather than focusing on seals, people are focusing on pie throwing. That kind of activism is counterproductive.

Years ago, a local activist named Julian Ichim threw chocolate milk on Conservative Canadian politician Stockwell Day. Do you think anybody sympathized with Ichim or paid attention to the causes he claimed to be championing when he lowered himself to such a juvenile and creepy level? No. It was a completely ineffectual act that set back whatever cause or causes that drove him to do it by several years. The same could be said of the pie-tossing incident yesterday.

The animal rights movement does not need that kind of "help."