Just when you thought the culture couldn’t become more demeaned. From the story:
It’s official. Octomom Nadya Suleman doesn’t want your dog or cat following in her footsteps. As a front yard full of paparazzi cheered her on, Suleman unveiled a 3-foot-by-4-foot plastic sign Wednesday that reads: “Don’t Let Your Dog or Cat Become an Octomom. Always Spay or Neuter.” “Turn left. Pose. Smile, Nadya,” photographers jockeying for position shouted as Suleman stood in front of the sign.
A few curious onlookers stopped to watch as a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals mascot (a person in a dog suit) gave her a hug. PETA is paying Suleman $5,000 to keep the sign on her front door until June 9, the deadline when city officials say it must be removed. The organization is also throwing in a month’s supply of veggie hot dogs and burgers for her and her 14 children. Suleman, 34, acknowledged she put the sign on her door partly for the money but added her support of PETA is sincere. “I love animals and I do believe they should be spayed or neutered,” she said. “Humans of course are much different.”
Not to the anti humanists at PETA. But talk about a made for each other moment. Good Grief.
May 20th, 2010 | 10:12 am
This is like having Lindsay Lohan as the featured speaker at an AA meeting.
Couldn’t resist.
May 20th, 2010 | 10:56 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: PETA And Octomom–Publicity Hounds Made For Each Other » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mCTJv [...]
May 20th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
Suleman in addition to being a publicity hound is also a poor negotiator. She could have gotten PETA to pay 10x that amount. They’ve gotten millions in free advertising on this one.
May 20th, 2010 | 3:32 pm
Referring to Ken’s point, that is, the measly amount PETA paid for the million dollar news hit, I wonder if they’ll step up and offer Suleman more compensations (financial and veggieburger) after the fact. Imagine the “next level” of publicity they’d get on that kind of piggybacked addition to the campaign….(um-m-m-m, did I just use an insensitive, demeaning-to-pigs term there?)
Ken, Deeptoad & Wesley…thanks for shining a bright light and your comments on this, a perfect example of PR insanity! In my mind’s eye, I imagine the scene at the news conference, including spectators and major players and statements involved, were worthy of inclusion in a Mel Brooks movie. It must have been hilarious! Best regards to all!
May 20th, 2010 | 3:38 pm
[...] See the original post here:Â PETA And Octomom–Publicity Hounds Made For Each Other » Secondhand … [...]
May 20th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Wesley Smith: in your latest book, which is informative and interesting, you make some valid points against PETA. You point out that it has many radical elements that go way beyond animal welfare, which you support.
So, since you DO support animal welfare measures,rather than animal rights, I’m a little suprised that you’re not giving PETA some credit here, for helping convince people to spay and neuter their dogs and cats.
Yes, PETA is provocative, but it may convince people to spay/neuter their pets, thus reducing the animal population, and thus preventing animal suffering.
Isn’t THIS the type of animal welfare you support?
You don’t support animal rights. I disagree with you, on that, but I respect your views. But you do, or at least I thought, support animal welfare efforts, since animals are conscoius beings capable of suffering.
May 20th, 2010 | 10:16 pm
Bret, nobody’s arguing that the spay/neuter message is unimportant. However, that doesn’t appear to be PETA’s main objective here. In fact, that point gets lost in the sensationalism. I mean, do you think anybody spayed/neutered their pets because of this message?
The purpose of this was not to promote animal welfare. The purpose of this was to generate publicity and donations for PETA. For PETA animal welfare is not the end, it is the means.
And that’s before we even acknowledge the tacky subtext in the placement of the spay/neuter sign on the octomom’s lawn.
If you want to promote animal welfare, help the organizations that actually do it, like your local Humane Society.
May 21st, 2010 | 2:02 am
Padraig: How do you know that PETA does not want to premote animal welfare? You’re making an assumption, and with respect, what’s your evidence for it?
Maybe you’re right, but I think that a wise rule of thumb, that I try and follow, is to assume that someone is genuine, unless there’s evidence to indicate otherwise.
I’m no apologist for PETA. But I do know that they’ve done some good, vis a vis animal protection efforts. In fact, Wesley Smith acknowledges this in his book.
As far as people being convinced that they should neuter/spay their pets, as a result of viewing the signs, who knows? But advertising does work, so it’s reasonable that some people will be persuaded, and if so, that’s a good thing.
My guess is, since PETA is every anti-animal rights proponents favorite whipping boy, it wouldn’t matter what they did; you and Wesley would still consider it bad.
May 21st, 2010 | 2:25 am
Padraig: You make a good point about donating to one’s local animal shelter. We all should do this. But, I also think that it’s good to have other organizations out there, such as PETA, to spread the word as well.
This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s announcement, on behalf of The Humane Society, for the humane treatment of dogs. One would think that this would do some good. After all, Rush advertises for companies on his show, and they don’t hand out the big bucks for nothing. Similarly, it’s highly plausible that some listeners were persuaded to help animals as a result of Rush’s statement. I think that he deserves tremendous credit for this.
Disconcertingly, Wesley Smith felt the need to tell Rush off for this. Now, since Smith believes in animal welfare efforts, it couldn’t be because of the message itself. It was, presumably, because it was on behalf of the Humane Society, which you and Smith consider to be a nefarious organization. Apparently, Rush, being so unworldly, was too naive to see through it all.
The same thing is happening here. PETA, must be condemed no matter what.
Let’s try and be mature enough, frankly, to acknowledge good, regardless of the source. You and Smith have respectible arguments concerning some of the inappropriate things PETA has done, but give credit where credit’s due.
May 21st, 2010 | 2:33 am
I would like to apologize for saying that you and Wesley would not support PETA ”no matter what”. Obviously, Smith did give them some credit in his book.
But there does seem to be a tendency to be disinclined to give them credit for any good they do.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 9:48 am
Bret: You are a man of integrity.
May 21st, 2010 | 1:06 pm
I’m wondering why the city government can dictate how long she can keep a sign on her own personal property? Suppose she clipped her hedges to spell out the same message?
May 21st, 2010 | 1:45 pm
Bret: “Padraig: How do you know that PETA does not want to premote animal welfare? You’re making an assumption, and with respect, what’s your evidence for it?”
I don’t, and I didn’t say that.
I said animal welfare is not (IMHO) PETA’s main purpose. PETA’s own welfare and the animal rights agenda are PETA’s main purposes. I base that on what I’ve read on where their money goes, which is largely to lobbying, salaries, and fundraising, and hardly any to shelters.
Animal welfare issues are what PETA uses to gain public support and raise funds. They may do some good, but it’s a byproduct at best.
By contrast, local Humane Societies are completely and directly focused on animal welfare.
If I have a problem with PETA, and even moreso the Humane Society of the United States, is that by soliciting contributions with the apparent promise of directly help animals (food & shelter) and then NOT providing those services substantively, they are pulling resources away from the organizations that DO directly and substantially help animals. There are only so many charity dollars available out there.
Well, that and the several million metric tons of deceptive crap that their propaganda mills put out. I don’t mind crap that’s labeled crap (i.e., advertising) but crap that’s labeled as the truth? PETA, HSUS, and Fox News are all in the same business as far as I’m concerned: telling people what they want to hear so they give you money.
May 22nd, 2010 | 4:57 am
Wesley Smith: Thanks. I appreciate your generousity in allowing people with different viewpoints to express their views. It shows that you have integrity, and are searching for the truth.
Padraig: you may be right, but I’m curious what source you’re relying on. Is it a source that has a vested interest in making PETA and HSUSA look bad?
Like I’ve said before, PETA clearly does inappropriate things. It has refused to condeme the violence of the ALF, for example. Which makes me very suspicious of its motives. As Gary Francione has pointed out, violence is inherently wrong, of course, and it also hurts the animal rights movement by making people, rightly, suspicious of it. The only way to help animals, as he has pointed out,is to completely reject all forms of violence. For Newkirk to give the impression that she, and her organization, PETA, admire a violent group like ALF, is very disturbing, and prompts me to think that, she is unconcerned about how animal rights groups are perccived, by the general public. Which is perplexing, because I do believe, that she cares about animals.
Padraig, I believe that you care about them too, but since you don’t accept the validity of animal rights, I suspect that your main problem is that these organizations are for animal rights, rather than animal welfare, which you, and Wesley Smith, clearly support.
What PETA is doing in this case is merely advertising the truth, which is, that dogs and cats need to be spayed/nuetered. that’s not propaganda. you may not like, or think it’s silly, how it went about it, bu it’s not being, at least in this case, untruthful.
Could you please provide me your source for your assertion that PETA/HSUSA does not provide for the care of animals? Maybe you’re right, and I’m sure you’re asserting this in good faith, but as we all know, sources can be biased, and deceptive.
May 22nd, 2010 | 9:50 am
Bret: “Padraig: you may be right, but I’m curious what source you’re relying on. Is it a source that has a vested interest in making PETA and HSUSA look bad?”
It’s on the tax forms they’re required to file. You can find copies on the Center for Consumer Freedom’s website, assuming that’s who you’re talking about with the “vested interest” talk. But they don’t produce the tax documents, they just dig them up and distribute them. The documents are valid, they are produced by PETA and HSUS themselves.
Plus, PETA and HSUS will actually admit to these things when pressed. They just say, in effect, “well, running shelters is not our primary purpose.” Doesn’t explain why their advertising suggests that they do rescue animals and run shelters.
May 22nd, 2010 | 5:46 pm
Padraig: good point.It’s unfair when they misrepresent their intentions. I’m with you on that.
However, in this case, with the ”octomom” situation, I don’t think that this is an example of the above, unless one really makes some unwarranted assumptions. That is, PETA is paying her to post a sign, that asys to spay and neuter your pets. No harm in that, in fact, we both can agree, if people, as a result of viewing this message, choose to spay and neuter their pets, some good has been achieved, (despite, according to, perhaps, some of PETA’s distractors, its best intentions!). This is at least plausible, since advertizing works.
Now, if people make the extrapolation, from this, that PETA is principally a rescue operation, that would be unwarranted.
May 26th, 2010 | 10:40 am
[...] Of course, the letter was not intended to touch the heart of Arafat. It was a typical publicity stunt by Newkirk, who is adept at taking any news item and wrangling it to gain publicity for PETA–as in the recent Octomom neuter the doggies stunt. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact