I may be a dick, but I'm not Andy
When I was writing
about Tony at the Elegant Hair Designs salon for elderly Maryland ladies, I
pointed out the comment that he was going to make me look like a movie star...
Well, in the interest of blogalistic research for you, my gentle readers, I came
across this
yesterday:
My hair is quite a bit shorter than Andy's right now, but let's just say the eyeglasses are similar...
My hair is quite a bit shorter than Andy's right now, but let's just say the eyeglasses are similar...
I was looking for some kind of a rebuttal from
PETA to www.petakillsanimals.com
but could not find anything. petakillsanimals.com came up in "casual" dinner
conversation with Mike (NOT Mikey P, from Man of the House)
and Mo on Sunday -- yes, Mike is working now for Center for Consumer Freedom,
or more accurately, for a group that provides managerial services for multiple
non-profits, including the Center for Consumer Freedom. The divers NPOs all are
linked to one another, by staff and funding sources as well as by the
back-office group that provides managerial services and bills each separately.
Many of these appear to have been "created by Berman & Co., a public
affairs group created by Rick Berman." (Link)
CCF is involved in a lot of things that most consumers are not really that interested in, including fighting bans on smoking in restaurants (initial funding provided by Philip Morris tobacco company); working to dilute organic labeling regulations; efforts by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to reduce drinking and driving; and their most recent cause célèbre, links between diet and obesity. In particular, they do not want restaurants to be forced to display content data on menus, because it will guilt diners out of eating what they would otherwise eat.
First, about smoking bans. I am really upset about the smoking ban that recently passed in Austin. I have to be honest, I rarely go out to see live music in clubs any more, but I think that it is one link in a chain that will make it harder for clubs and bands to break out in Austin. But that is not the reason that CCF would oppose it. They oppose it because of their funding sources, which are not little mom and pop restaurants. Outback Steakhouse, Perkins, etc. Who cares if the chains are affected? I really don't. Outback could disappear off the face of the earth and nobody would give a shit except for the investors who lost their stake (ha, get it?). My point is that this is not, repeat NOT, a matter of conviction for CCF. It is a matter of their paycheck and who is writing it. Definition of a corporate hack, right there. CCF claims that they are "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers," but here is a challenge. I want to see the name of one person, just ONE, consumer who is not linked to any of the special interests that fund CFF or one of its parents or sister groups. who are these consumers who are clamoring for their freedom?
As for PETA... Ms Pope and I prefer no-kill shelters. We got our second dog, Seamus, from a no-kill shelter. So, if PETA is euthanizing animals, I am frustrated with them for the same reason I am frustrated with Town Lake Animal Shelter. But their message isn't against animal death, per se. It is against useless animal suffering. If you read the releases they offer, it is filled with painful images of animals being killed in ways that are essentially torture. Euthanasia, despite being preventable, isn't torture nor does it cause animal suffering.
CCF is not trying to stop animal deaths. CCF is trying to do an end-run against a well-funded group that interferes with CFF's clients' ability to make profit off of animal death and suffering.
CCF also has a petition up asking that PETA's non-profit status be revoked. The reason they offer as justification for revoking PETA's non-profit status is because its activists have been arrested in the course of protests. I found it interesting, therefore, to find out that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group funded by several educational foundations, asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedom's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status: "The watchdog group said Berman has used the center to funnel money to himself and his company, a violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a nonprofit for their private benefit. The organization also said that the group's activities were solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are 'not remotely charitable.'" Look back at the first paragraph about the Byzantine funding.
Do two things to obstruct these folks. Donate money to PETA now, just because CFF opposes them. And the next time you go out to eat, eat dinner at a small family-owned restaurant instead of one of the huge soulless chains that Berman makes his salary off of. And consider skipping the meat.
CCF is involved in a lot of things that most consumers are not really that interested in, including fighting bans on smoking in restaurants (initial funding provided by Philip Morris tobacco company); working to dilute organic labeling regulations; efforts by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to reduce drinking and driving; and their most recent cause célèbre, links between diet and obesity. In particular, they do not want restaurants to be forced to display content data on menus, because it will guilt diners out of eating what they would otherwise eat.
First, about smoking bans. I am really upset about the smoking ban that recently passed in Austin. I have to be honest, I rarely go out to see live music in clubs any more, but I think that it is one link in a chain that will make it harder for clubs and bands to break out in Austin. But that is not the reason that CCF would oppose it. They oppose it because of their funding sources, which are not little mom and pop restaurants. Outback Steakhouse, Perkins, etc. Who cares if the chains are affected? I really don't. Outback could disappear off the face of the earth and nobody would give a shit except for the investors who lost their stake (ha, get it?). My point is that this is not, repeat NOT, a matter of conviction for CCF. It is a matter of their paycheck and who is writing it. Definition of a corporate hack, right there. CCF claims that they are "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers," but here is a challenge. I want to see the name of one person, just ONE, consumer who is not linked to any of the special interests that fund CFF or one of its parents or sister groups. who are these consumers who are clamoring for their freedom?
As for PETA... Ms Pope and I prefer no-kill shelters. We got our second dog, Seamus, from a no-kill shelter. So, if PETA is euthanizing animals, I am frustrated with them for the same reason I am frustrated with Town Lake Animal Shelter. But their message isn't against animal death, per se. It is against useless animal suffering. If you read the releases they offer, it is filled with painful images of animals being killed in ways that are essentially torture. Euthanasia, despite being preventable, isn't torture nor does it cause animal suffering.
CCF is not trying to stop animal deaths. CCF is trying to do an end-run against a well-funded group that interferes with CFF's clients' ability to make profit off of animal death and suffering.
CCF also has a petition up asking that PETA's non-profit status be revoked. The reason they offer as justification for revoking PETA's non-profit status is because its activists have been arrested in the course of protests. I found it interesting, therefore, to find out that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group funded by several educational foundations, asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedom's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status: "The watchdog group said Berman has used the center to funnel money to himself and his company, a violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a nonprofit for their private benefit. The organization also said that the group's activities were solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are 'not remotely charitable.'" Look back at the first paragraph about the Byzantine funding.
Do two things to obstruct these folks. Donate money to PETA now, just because CFF opposes them. And the next time you go out to eat, eat dinner at a small family-owned restaurant instead of one of the huge soulless chains that Berman makes his salary off of. And consider skipping the meat.
Posted: Tue - May 24, 2005 at 07:53 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Blogrolling
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 24, 2005 08:02 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 24, 2005 08:02 AM