I deleted it to the bare bones because I am not trying to start an argument with Bogdana. I don't mind the way people choose to use their own freedom of speech. My point is that using words like extremist, radical, or eco-terrorist is a tactic. I just think that when a person hears a word like that they should consider it and not accept it without question.
I used the seeing eye dog as an example that many might find extreme. But the point is that it is not the animals choice, and that the animal is molded into service. I think that a dog might have natural tendencies towards this anyway, and that the dogs are probably carefully chosen and that it isn't so unnatural. I'm not against seeing eye dogs. I was using it as an example of a view that might not be very popular, but that still had a somewhat logical basis. But they mention that in that HBO piece. I think it sounds like they are not going to be real balanced.
edit: I was reading the interview with the filmmaker and it doesn't sound like the piece is unfair. He seems pretty sympathetic to the cause. I guess the review is drawing on the more controversial points to get people to watch.
PETA is it's own worst enemy. They take positions that are hugely unpopular and make themselves look silly with their groupie star-struck celebrity obsession. They let Michael Vick come to their headquarters to take an animal sensitivity training course. I wrote to them that it looks like PETA and Mike Vick are using each other and that I found it disgusting that they would have anything to do with this person that tortures and kills. They did answer though and it sort of made sense.
Dear David,
Thank you for contacting PETA regarding Michael Vick’s attendance of our “Developing Empathy for Animals” course.
Following the news of Vick’s guilty plea, PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, contacted Vick and suggested that he hear—for the first time in his life, he confirmed—about animal protection issues, learn how animals feel joy and pain and deserve respect, and receive specific instruction on what to say to young people whom he has influenced in the worst possible ways.
We regret if our intentions regarding Michael Vick were not clear. Please allow me to elaborate: PETA has no desire to do anything to improve his image. We do not support him or his actions. While we are glad that we were able to present him with facts about animals and treating them with empathy, we have made it clear to both Vick and the judge hearing his case that he should serve the maximum sentence allowable by law and be banned for life from contact with animals.
We took advantage of the opportunity to meet with Vick because we wanted to teach him about animals and why it is not acceptable to abuse them in any way. The information we shared with him was completely new to him. As a public figure, it is inevitable that Vick will at some point interact with children again. If the information we gave him will make it so he will impart the message that animal abuse is unacceptable, then our effort was not in vain.
As an animal rights group, it is our job to educate everyone we can about animals. It would have been a failure on our part if we had turned away from the possibility of allowing a generation of children to see firsthand how participating in animal cruelty can derail a person’s dreams and career.
Given the numerous incidents of alleged animal abuse cases involving NFL players in recent years, please join us in urging the NFL to require every player to take PETA’s “Developing Empathy for Animals” course. You can do so at
http://GetActive.PETA.org/campaign/vick_nfl_empathy.
For more thoughts on Vick and PETA’s empathy class, please see
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/10/vick_at_the_off.php and
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/10/michael_vick_ps.php. I also highly recommend that you read PETA president Ingrid Newkirk’s op-ed that was printed in the Virginian-Pilot and many other newspapers nationwide:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/Vick Classroom Op-Ed, Va. Pilot, October 2007.pdf.
Thank you again for writing and for the chance to clarify our position. We appreciate your concern for animals and your support.
Sincerely,
Jeff Haines
Correspondence Assistant
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals