Does that include humans? Fitter, Happier.

I hear that they are starting at Ellen DeGeneres' house.

They are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

I like it when they do the naked protests. Other then that they are a bunch of freaks!

Sadly, PETA doesn't think straight about what that would mean.....

In general, it's a good technique to aim for a goal beyond what is reasonable, so that when the concessions come you will have a least gained something. But there is a danger of losing moral because your cause never reaches its goals.

I think they will have a difficult time with humans. Humans resist liberation and like to be led.

The idea of all animals roaming streets doing what they wanted to do makes me more than a little nervous, honestly.

Stupid. Has someone been watching Pen and Teller BS?

I'm all for being nice to animals, not harming them and such and I saw this horrible gross video that the PETA people sent me in the mail showing a poor raccon getting his skin (fur) pulled off him while he was still alive. Imagine having your skin ripped off so that someone like J.Lo could wear it. I wish I could be come a vegitarian, but I also think that if we were suppose to be veggies than the whole concept of eatting meat would never of happened.

I absolutely, 100%, hate PETA to my very core, and feel that it is the logical extension of the dark, twisted, miserable soul of its founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk. But saying that, I should explain further. I want to make clear that I am vegan and strongly in support of animal rights. To me, when a human suffers the same pain that an nonhuman animal does, both pains are equally bad. I also support PETA's goal of ultimate "total liberation" - the complete abolition of the use or ownership of nonhuman animals in anyway, except maybe for seeing-eye dogs (but advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and even artificial eye transplants will probably eliminate the need for them in the next decade or two). I also am unashamed to admit that I don't hold it against PETA that it most likely financially and philosophically supports terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front, thus supporting the use of terror, violence, and violation of the law to achieve its goals. Frankly, there is not ONE movement in the history of the human race that has ever succeeded based purely on non-violent protests and resistance. In India, Gandhi wasn't really the cause of liberation - Great Britain was devastated at the end of a world war, and in an age where "national self-determination" was in and "imperialism" was out, it couldn't turn to its allies for support, and so realized that it was incapable of holding on to the huge subcontinent through military force, or beating down the existing violent, terrorist freedom fighters that also existed in India. Violence liberated India. I would argue that organizations like the Black Panthers, and other violent grassroots African American groups, were also far more responsible for the success of the civil rights movement than Martin Luther King's admirable, but ineffective, non-violent resistance movement. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but the fact is, if peace and non-violence was convincing to humans, we'd all be saints, and if we were all saints, there would be no need for non-violent resistance movements. My "beefs" (pun intended) with PETA are many, and all motivated by concern for the rights of animals. Firstly, they're deeply hypocritical - they claim to see human life as equally valuable as nonhuman life, or at least comparable, and, as an example, compare the Nazi Holocaust to what happens yearly in factory farms. Now, although on moral grounds I think the comparison is fair, and shouldn't be seen as demeaning the Holocaust but rather elevating the serious evil of factory farming, it was bound to cause a HUGE backlash of anti-animal-rights public opinion. But my main point with this is that they are hypocritical - they KILL almost all the animals they rescue. Check out this site (which is not an animal rights site, but has good anti-PETA info): http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ Since 1998 they've killed over 17,000 of the animals they've "rescued", often almost immediately after "rescuing" them (often illegally, and, since they'll kill them anyway, unnecessarily). Each year, they kill over a thousand, and sometimes over two thousand "rescued" animals, anywhere from 72 - 97% of them. MANY of these animals are fully adoptable and healthy. They are actively AGAINST "no kill shelters", see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Policy_on_euthanasia Their president and founder, Newkirk, has personally killed thousands of animals with her own hands in her lifetime, many when she worked in an animal shelter before founding the organization. She felt it was her moral obligation to make sure she killed them herself, to make sure they were killed painlessly. PETA and Newkirk's stance seems to be that painless killing is morally acceptable. That "rescuing" an animal is consistent morally with ending its life shortly afterwards, even though it could just as easily live, often without veterinary intervention. If I was being tortured in a cage, and someone came to rescue me, I would certainly hope it was just to rescue me from torture and confinement, and not from the "horror" of being alive. And that is the main source of my deep disgust with PETA and Newkirk - their philosophy is one of being against LIFE. Now, Buddhists say that "life is suffering", but they try to do constructive things about that, not "mercy kill" themselves and everyone around them so that that suffering can end. What PETA doesn't get is that suffering is not the ultimate evil - death IS, and suffering only is a useful measure of how likely one IS to die, without intervention. But if you've ever seen or read anything from Newkirk, you'll find she sounds like a miserable person that hates being alive, and assumes that life is fundamentally horrible. PETA spends MILLIONS of dollars each year on cheap, tawdry, offensive ad campaigns that make the animal rights movement look sexist, stupid, gross, intellectually dishonest, racist, and anti-religion. All those millions would be better spent on not killing the animals they "rescue", but making sure they all go to good homes, or receive the appropriate veterinary care, instead of plastering Pamela Anderson with a message against fur on a billboard on Times Square. That brings me to the second, and, I guess, last thing I have against PETA. If I didn't know better, I would say that their REAL goal is to make bloody sure that the WHOLE WORLD knows that the old expression "all publicity is good publicity, even the bad" is completely untrue. To me, they've accomplished that goal, and should stop trying so hard to beat this dead horse (the one they "rescued") and either close shop or stop killing animals and start to actually make animal rights seem like a serious, compassionate movement, instead of a circus. That's my take on PETA. Spread the word that PETA kills animals, by the way. A lot of people don't know.

Well, there goes a few hundred species of rare animal that only survived because of zoo conservation programs. I'd be sad as it would mean the end of the famous "Air Bud" series of family movies. weep.