Those kooky PETA folks have done it again.

Apparently, ethical includes unlawful killing.

The following story is from This is True dated 17 July 2005. It is Copyright 2005 Randy Cassingham, all rights reserved, and reprinted here with permission:

“Ethical” Defined

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over
four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle
behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched
the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people
in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster,
including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say
the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and
Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy
performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed.
Police say PETA has been picking up the animals — alive — from North
Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and
Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In
response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it’s against
the group’s policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but “that
for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than
euthanasia.” (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) …Oops, my mistake: that’s
“Playing God” Defined.

In his author’s notes section, Cassingham had more to say about this
story:

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of
them. The story of them killing animals isn’t even unusual. According to
PETA’s own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the
animals entrusted to its care — a number that’s rising, not falling.
Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA’s home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find
loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of
funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations.
It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism
(yes, really). But don’t take my word for it: I got my figures from
http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com
– and they have copies of PETA’s state and federal filings to back it
up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they
care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally
yells and screams about how others “kill animals” but this is how
they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA’s official count of animals
they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they’re going around picking up
animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a
chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping
the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My
guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably
much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone
about the “ethical” treatment of animals!

(This is True is a weekly column featuring
weird-but-true news
stories from around the world, and has been published since 1994. Click
the link for info about free subscriptions.)

Way
to go, folks. You really got us this time. Oh, and the moral outrage, the
righteous indignation? Uh, yeah, about
that…

PS – OK, so this has nothing to
do with Michael Moore (say, is he making another “documentary”?) it seems like
just the sort of thing he’d do.

Suddenly I’m glad that Moore’s film came out way back when. It may have been better to release it later – say, August – when it might have done a little more good.

(Thanks to Allah for the link.)

Notice in particular how real life in Iraq is contrasted with the idyllic view presented by Michael Moore.

UPDATE: Tim Blair notes some doublespeak. I’m shocked. Really. I am.

The primary cause of Europe’s inability to do anything about Iran’s quest to be a nuclear power is a complete misunderstanding of what really happened on the continent in the 20th century. That is, what wars are, and why wars are fought. Says de Winter:

Perfectly expressing this concept of war were the huge demonstrations in Europe against the war in Iraq. In these rituals, the term “war” was taken out of its historical, political, and cultural context, and no justification for fighting was deemed acceptable. The high priest of this antihistorical creed is Michael Moore, who, 59 years after the end of the Second World War, in a discussion with TV talk show host Bill O’Reilly, would not state categorically that only a devastating war could have saved Europe from something far worse, namely Nazism. By these lights, war is bad whatever the historical or political circumstances.

What, Adolf Hitler was simply misunderstood? The Holocaust wasn’t that bad? (Or, didn’t even happen?) The French wanted the Nazis ruling their country?

Please read the whole artlcle; I’m ashamed to admit that our favorite misanthropist only plays a bit part… an oh-so-important bit part, but a bit part nonetheless.

UPDATE: On a semi-related note, Lorie Byrd ties John McCain’s “graver threat” to the Chechen school massacre. As you read the Sunday Mirror article she links to, please ask yourself: What Would Michael Moore Do?

I don’t think I want to know.

“Michael Moore is known for wild flights of fantasy and delusion, and that’s another one,” he said. “I have no interest in meeting, seeing, hearing, talking, reading, being in the presence of the man.”

Please, Mr. Rove, tell us how you really feel. Don’t hold back…

Me, I just call it revolting.

Hmm… maybe Michael Moore should make a movie about himself.

Authorities in Kuwait, a US ally, also objected to the film’s criticism of America’s invasion of Iraq.

“We have a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations,” said Abdul-Aziz Bou Dastour of the Information Ministry.

On the bright side, though, at least someone is getting the message out that Moore’s research methods are questionable.

“… there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. [...]

“But two wrongs don’t make a right, and the right response to Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents. Moreover, regarding the issues presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, the evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin.”

Please be careful and check the sources for each item. You should be as skeptical of this commentary as I am encouraging you to be of the film. On the balance, though, it doesn’t look good for Mr. Moore.

PS – Thanks to Mom for the pointer!