Your pets cause global warming so eat them

Maybe it's me but I wonder what PETA is going to say about a recent article by AFP on how pets are the next global warming (or are they using the new 'climate change' slogan) problem that needs to be solved?

Don't believe me?

"The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car."

So this theory, backed up by John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute, indicates that dogs, and cats, are more dangerous to the environment than cars. Of course hamsters and even goldfish were not left out of the analysis. In each case it was found that a pet is an additional burden to the planet.

What's the solution proposed? PETA and animal lovers will really get a kick out of this.

"But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale."

Taking this "solution" to its logical end, it means that ANY pet is only worth having if you eventually eat them. And I'm not reaching on that conclusion. Mr. Vale wrote a book on his conclusion titled Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. Do you get his point?

I admit that I have never believed in global warming. Nor global cooling a couple of decades before that. Nor the latest trend/fad of climate change (a true act of verbal idiocy - the climate is constantly changing and has been since before man existed).

But I would never condone the views that Vale and potentially other eco-fanatics will inevitably present. Pets, of all kinds, are not meals. They are members of families and valuable companions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I feel that a pet is far more important than some questionable science that is politically based and factually proven to have been manipulated and promoted for self-interests.

Where are the animal lovers? Where is PETA, a group that has no problem attacking virtually every group they consider even marginally against animal rights? I mean they went after the Pet Shop Boys just because of the band's name, and I have yet to see anything about this - which I feel is far more serious in its implications.

I may not agree with all the tactics and thoughts of PETA, but I respect the fact they have strong convictions. I love dogs, and I really fear the thinking Vale and others have for this political fantasy dressed as science. PETA and pet lovers need to say something. Because in a world of "Change you can believe in" I guarantee that at some point Al Gore will get in his private jet and tell some political group across the world that pet levels need to be reduced worldwide and it will help feed the hungry too.

Don't believe me, but already the Government has said that CO2, our exhaled breaths, are a danger to the planet. Which means the Government will want to regulate that CO2, and if a pet is more "deadly" than a SUV or car... well you can imagine what happens next.

CloFu - the new craze for crazy PETA

You know nothing says nutjob quite the way that PETA tends to. They go to extremes it seems to ensure that the average person looks at them like they have lost their minds. Take the most recent stunt/idea they had.

Everyone loves George Clooney right? PETA thinks so. And everyone should like tofu - a soybean product best described as nature's plastic. Well at least vegetarians like it. Thus PETA came up with the brilliant (said like in the Guiness commercials) idea of combining the 2.

Yes, thanks to a sweaty gym towel PETA somehow got possesion of they plan to infuse tofu with the flavor of Clooney himself. If they can convince him to agree. So far the likelyhood of this is low.

"As a mammal, I'm offended," says Clooney in response."

Now I ponder on this. Does PETA do things like this dumb idea because they want the publicity, or because they really think people will actually change their lives over such a stupid idea? Or any of the many other dumb stunts they have pulled in the past, like the near pornograghic Super Bowl commercial that was banned.

Publicity may be great, but I doubt they are helping themselves gain any converts when they are associating themselves with what might best be described as looney-tune antics.

Though I really would like to know if any George Clooney fan would actually eat CloFu (the proposed name of the bizarre flavored tofu)?

Top 5 list of Super Bowl ads

Now I cannot have an entertainment blog, and not discuss the Super Bowl ads before the big game. It just can’t be done.

As the ads for the big game are getting finalized, cut back, or eliminated (like PETA's porn ad) – most due to the economic freefall – I wanted to look back and mention my 5 favorite all time Super Bowl ads. Some you will agree with, in fact I think everyone will agree that they are all top ads which is rare in any list ever made. You may not agree with the order I pick. But you are more than free to correct me if you wish.

Number 5

I hate, with extreme prejudice, Grand Theft Auto. But I have to say that Coca Cola did a great job to twisting the hyper-violent, stereotyped, insulting game into something everyone can watch and enjoy. Though I still prefer Pepsi to drink.



Number 4

There is no office more interesting to watch than the one with Terry Tate. The mix of the monotony of daily work and the excitement of football is something that was truly inspired genius.



Number 3

It was hard to decide if this should be higher or not. But I settled for 3. Michael Jordan, and the equally famous Larry Bird, doing what only they can do – sink a basket like almost no one else. It just wouldn’t work with anyone else. And you just have to wonder who missed first (my bet is Bird would miss first).



Number 2

Now this one may get me a lot of heat. It is the first Super Bowl ad that I can remember. It is classic in every aspect. It was the true usher of the Super Bowl ad competition we all enjoy today. It is famous across the world (and copied without pause as well). But I place it 2nd.



Number 1

It’s artsy. It’s got a message. It was groundbreaking. And it was used to crush a Democratic Primary hopeful (thankfully) some 24 years after it was made. What more does it take to reach the top?



Of course there is one other Super Bowl ad that I must mention. It is separate of all the other Super Bowl ads. Created by Budweiser, it displayed the heart of the nation. It must be mentioned in any list of greatest Super Bowl ads, and is separate of any ranking.



So there is my list of the top 5 greatest Super Bowl ads. Now if I were to make the list go to 10, what else should I add? And what order would you have chosen?

And maybe, we can hope, the economic breakdown inspired something that can make my list next year. But with these greats, it’s hard to imagine.

PETA promotes soft core porn?

Wow. The people at PETA are really something else.

Warning, the following video is highly suggestive and therefore may not be appropriate for anyone under 18.



Now here is the question. Is PETA promoting sex with vegetables?

That seems to be the only thing that this ad is promoting. Fetish sex. It does nothing to say that wearing a mink in Miami is wasteful or cruel. It does nothing to explain why pitbull fights are a horrendous act of depraved human beings.

Now I love animals as much as the average person. I can agree with a few of the things that PETA is against. But I am no fanatic. I love a good steak and cheeseburger. So PETA is targeting me in this ad that was rejected for the Super Bowl.

But beyond the suggestion that these women are using these vegetables as a means of self-gratification I don’t get the point. In fact the only thing that this commercial would make me wonder, besides what I have already stated, is where did the statistics on vegetarians come from? It’s not like I trust PETA enough to just take them at their word.

The only controversy in this television ad is what the woman is doing with the pumpkin, since the other women are very explicit in what they intend to do with their vegetables.

But PETA has me discussing this ad. So they are getting part of what they wanted. The problem is that I’m not discussing helping any animals. Nor am I thinking that being a vegetarian is of any more benefit than holding a carrot on a date.

They have failed their base, annoyed ultra-conservatives, titillated more than a few pre-teens, and exposed kids to a new fetish they probably didn't know of. And not one animal has benefited from the ad. At least they helped the women in the ad stay employed. That’s a positive.

Update on The Day The Earth Stood Still

Way back in August this year I mentioned my preview of The Day The Earth Stood Still. In that preview I had only one video clip of the film to judge the revisioning of the 1951 classic by. And I stated that it would be more of a waste of money than the total auto industry bailout - well not the bailout but a waste of time. But I also made a couple of assumptions.



While I am right that this film is a disservice to the original, and is yet another example of why a revisioned film is a pathetic excuse for Hollywood to say something no one wants to see/hear, I did get something wrong.

"And there is the benefit of appealing to women with the hint of the line

“If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives."

Such a hokey line and idea never was in the first film, but I’m sure it will garner positive reviews from women’s groups because she is so important to the world."

Wrong. The line is not meant about the one woman it is said to but about mankind in total. Of course I was placing the importance of that singular female character on a high category, which it was in the first film along with her son. But then again I am not an eco-fanatic nor am I a far-left Hollywood writer or movie studio exec. Films might be better if I were, or at least remakes I think.

The line in fact refers to the ecology of the Earth. We humans are destroying it and so some alien needs to come down and save our planet from us. Basically an alien version of Greenpeace and PETA mixed together without that much peace. Thank you Hollywood for giving us your political commentary yet again.

I also stated in my original preview

"The new film will likely lose all the nuance, and subtle political message of the original film. In fact I expect the film will make a political point like using a sledgehammer to open a sunflower seed."

Well a 25 foot tall robot could definitely be a sledgehammer. Or the plague of microbots and their erasive nature. But the point was correct. Be green or else is the only mission, plot and image this film wants to convey. Which is fine if you want to be at an Al Gore rally. But when I spend $9 just to get a ticket, and give up 2 hours of my life, I prefer to be entertained.

Film has long ago given messages in the stories that it presents. For America, most of the films that were solely focused on this were called B-films, and were laughable. Today we see a Hollywood that could make Ed Wood proud. Hollywood gives us over the top, often CGI enhanced, massively budgeted, political commentary in the guise of something we liked in the past and are lured in to see again. In essence we are just throwing away good money and time for a stump speech that does do more than annoy and infuriate because we were given a bait-n-switch flim-flam. [They could have just given the entire budget to Greenpeace, PETA, and various global warming groups and saved the planet their carbon emissions and wasting out time.]

I stand by my original postulation on The Day The Earth Stood Still. It will make some money because of the effects and the stars in the film (notably Keanu Reeves and Jaden Smith, not to mention Jennifer Connelly). But this will ultimately be a failure. It will fail to do justice to the original film, the original message, the writing, and the entertainment value we expect to receive for our money.

I don't think I can say it more bluntly.

PETA hates ice cream and Ben & Jerry's, I think

Do you love ice cream? I prefer butter pecan myself, but vanilla and chocolate are the favorites of the nation. Still there are plenty of people that like rocky road too.

Now the type of ice cream you may enjoy could depend on the brand that you are having. One of the most favored and popular brands is Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. With flavors like Cherry Garcia, Chunky Monkey, and New York Super Fudge Chunk they capture the attention and the tastebuds. And the company is eco-freak friendly too.

From the use of unbleached containers (which ended after 9 years of use in 2006 because of cost), certified humane cage-free eggs, $600,000 in donations (2006), a 32% reduction in normalized CO2 production (2006), and the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation which awarded $1,333,985 in grants to organizations working to address the root causes of social and environmental problems in our nation. This company is the forward edge of different.

I mention all this because this is not enough for one organization. That group would be PETA. Shocked right?

PETA feels that Ben & Jerry’s is missing out on a natural substitute that is sure to bring in the crowds. Cow milk is obviously a horrendous thing, according to them, and therefore Ben & Jerry’s needs to replace it. The change they suggest would be to breast milk. Yes, that is human breast milk.

PETA feels this would be better for the cows and more nutritional too. Ladies, do you agree? Anyone want to volunteer to be milked?

No worries, Ben & Jerry’s respectfully declined the idea. But I am far less restricted, as I have no association with the company. That has to be the biggest nutball idea that I have heard from PETA in years. I don’t think I’ve seen a group of people more deprived of logic ever. Perhaps if they got off their perches, had a burger (with bacon and cheese) and relaxed they might feel better.

I love my pets as much as anyone. But I can’t agree with any group that places anything above the lives of human beings. Doesn’t matter if they prefer animals, trees, dirt or anything.

Since I became moderately lactose intolerant I have had less ice cream year over year. But after reading this news item, I’m off to the store. I’m going to buy a couple of gallons of ice cream and give it away. Thank you PETA I am now inspired.

A few odd bits - 3.5.2007.1

Just a couple of silly things I noticed in the last couple of days. One thing that may be of interest is a new dating site. I’m sure it will take of for the PETA crowd, though I’m not sure who else it may interest. The site, originally from the Dutch but since copied in the U.S. and other nations, is unique because of who it targets – single pet owners. Yes if you have been sitting at home with your 4 cats and 2 dogs wondering where is the love of your life, that loves your pets as much as you, this is the site you need. And guys take note, most of the initial respondents to this site are women.

I’m not one for sharing time at a zoo, though I do like most dogs and have owned a few over the years, but I’m sure someone must enjoy it. If you’ve been searching for that person who spends more on their pets than their own household bills go for it. Don’t get me wrong, I love dogs and to a lesser degree other pets (except pitbulls, Rotwiellers and Dobermans – long story) but I have limits. Yet the internet is fantastic for finding that fringe group you’ve always wanted to be part of. And a bonus is the site is Dutch.

I mention it’s a bonus that the site is Dutch because they officially are the happiest people in Europe. 97% of people in Denmark feel they are happy, better than all the rest of Europe. But it doesn’t end there, they also aren’t worried about the pensions. Life is pretty good out there.

But reality does hit Europe like it does here in America. About 66% or Europeans thing the future generations will have a harder life than now. There is also a consensus of thought that most do not trust their politicians or governments or political parties. Well I can’t really blame them on that one.

Still for all the joy out there in Europe they still don’t get to have the simple pleasures here in America. Simple if you can afford it, like the 2.3 million dollars spent on a Honus Wagner baseball card. Yes someone spent more than $2 million on a card. I don’t get it. I can only imagine it as a waste of money. Wine you can drink, or at least cook with. Real estate you can live on. Investments can make you more money, but a baseball card?

Yes it’s a rare card, and as a former comic book collector I can understand the desire to own a rare item. But I’d never buy the X-Men #4 for $250,000 as an example. It just makes no sense and I like that series. Even thirty thousand dollars seems a lot for it and it has several pages and tells a story. The baseball card is just an image and some stats, that if you don’t know the full history means nothing. I just don’t get it. Obviously someone else does though. And it proves that there is nothing like this homegrown game in the world.

Ok, more later.

This is what I think, what do you think?