Monthly Archives: October 2011

PETA being stupid. Again.

There are a lot of things in this world that make me roll my eyes: spam mail, sixth-graders smoking pot, and the obnoxious price of college tuition.

But what I read in the news today not only has me rolling my eyes, but my jaw dropping, snorting in disbelief and exclaiming the classic, “Really, are you freaking serious right now?”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is suing SeaWorld claiming that the amusement park is enslaving its orca whales, thus wanting the animals to be protected under the 13th Amendment. Of the United State’s Constitution.

Gays can’t even get married and you want whales to be entitled to given a human right? Gays, whom are human, are being denied human rights to equal opprotunity and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s a little too soon to classify animals as humans, don’t you think?

PETA has sued SeaWorld on behalf of five orca whales. Last time I checked, you can’t sue on the behalf of someone else. So unless Tilikum and the four other orcas ask PETA to help them, they are going to have to continue being “slaves” to SeaWorld. Sorry.

And there is no way you can call SeaWorld a slave master or even compare it to the slavery conditions of the 19th century. These whales are domesticated, they are given a luxurious domain, they are fed constantly. Yes I know they were taken out of the ocean to be used as entertainment, but welcome to the Circle of Life/the food chain.

By going off of PETA’s argument that the marine animals are being used as slaves because they are “kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld’s profit” (according to Jeff Kerr, PETA’s general counsel), dogs are slaves. Dogs were taken from the streets, kept in shelters with cages, forced to sit, shake, roll. But I don’t see PETA filing a complaint for Fido. All domesticated animals could be considered slaves. But that’s simply ridiculous, isn’t it? Exactly.

PETA is just an outright extremist animal group. Your “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaigns are extreme and raunchy. Your suggestion that Maine should educate children about the ills of lobster catching is extreme and idiotic. You are just extreme and idiotic.

Animal rights in general area joke. First off, chickens on a farm don’t have feelings and don’t know that you will be cutting off their heads in two seconds. And secondly, if it tastes good, why are you so concerned? Again, it’s called the Circle of Life/food chain. Humans are on top, animals are not. Plain and simple.

The PETA v. SeaWorld law suit will not go very far as the motion has no validity. PETA, find something else better to do with your time.

This doesn't look like slavery to me...


Truth v. Media

Well, there you have it. After four years of being locked in  prison, Amanda Knox has been acquitted after a 10-month appeal process.

Now the true question is whether or not she did it. I personally don’t think she did. Knox’s main argument for the appeal was the fact that her DNA was not found on the knife that slit victim Meredith Kercher’s throat. And the prosecution analysis of the weapon was declared shoddy and unreliable during the appeal case. Um, if this doesn’t scream reasonable doubt (thanks, mock trial), then I don’t know what does. How can someone be guilty of a murder if they didn’t even hold the murder weapon?


Throughout the trial, Knox has been named “Foxy-Knoxy” and even “she-devil” by lawyers. There were so many interpretations of Knox’s character, it was hard to decide if she was “angelic” or “diabolic”. I’m sure that the “diabolic” side could have been attributed to the fact that Knox was doing cartwheels outside the police station or making out with her ex-boyfriend and co-defendent at the crime scene. But last time I checked, these are not signs of murder. At all.

As with the Casey Anthony trial, the media played a ginormous role throughout the trial. Thanks to Nancy Grace (and her loud mouth), the media convicted Anthony as a baby-killer. But in Knox’s case, the American media portrayed Knox as innocent and as a victim of a corrupted foregin justice system. Knox is a Seattle native who was studying in Perugia, Italy. So is there a sense of bias in American journalism? Um, probably.

England (the victim’s home country) portrayed Knox as guilty. Italy (where the crime occured) portrayed Knox as guilty. When the verdict was read, shouts of “Shame! Shame!” could be heard outside the courtroom. This is exactly what happened in the Anthony trial: outburts of anger at the verdict.

What’s going down here is that people are too lazy to read into the respective case itself. They rely on the media to give them the whole details. This really shouldn’t be an issue, seeing as though journalism should represent an objective, unbiased perspective. But, in both Anthony’s and Knox’s cases, this didn’t happen. I’m not saying that the media shouldn’t be relied upon (especially since I want you to rely on me when I become a journalist); I’m saying that people should research each case on their own before making a decision. This includes reading about both sides and what each side has to offer. Don’t just jump to conclusions because Nancy Grace gives her heated argument. Obviously, it is biased.

The media has a powerful influence: people all over the world depend upon it to give them the latest news. It is a disservice to the profession when only one side is represented in an only positive or an only negative way.

So if you are angry at Knox’s accquittal, can you provide any reason that has presented in the case as to why she is truly guilty? I would love to be enlightened.