Blog
By:
Category: Military, multimedia, Panorama, Pets, Politics, Science and Technology, Shopping
Posted: March 11, 2010 11:37 AM
Why PETA and Colorado Springs Aren't Such Unlikely Allies, After All
In Colorado Springs, where many streetlights have been turned off and trash cans removed from parks because of budget cuts, the highly conservative city council appears willing to entertain just about any offer for help, even from the controversial PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
The animal-rights group wants to purchase trash cans for city parks that would feature an anti-meat slogan---"Meat trashes the planet. Go vegan."---with a smiling blond wearing a bikini made of lettuce.
Mayor Lionel Rivera says he'd be open to the idea if PETA also pays for trash removal.
"If you allow PETA to advertise on trash cans, then you would also have to allow the Colorado Beef Council equal time," Rivera jokes to the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Councilman Tom Gallagher, a fan of hamburgers, has no problems partnering with PETA, even if some carnivores in the city would be offended.
"At least they wouldn’t have to walk through trash," he says. PETA has made similar offers in other cash-strapped cities around the nation.
Earlier this month, the group offered to shovel snow off sidewalks in Cleveland in exchange for permission to stencil a message reading, "Chained Dog? A Chilling Tail," a message meant to shame dog owners who leave their pets outside in freezing conditions and vulnerable to frostbite, according to a news release.Comments
Submitted by G (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 15:53.
Colorado Springs does not have a shortage of trash cans, we have a shortage of funds to pay park workers.
PETA is just capitalizing on an opportunity to do the usual self serving thing it has become so good at. Always easiest to take the low road instead of actually contributing something worthwhile to the plight of all animals.
As far as the lights, I'm so sick of people acting like we are in the dark over here. Its unnatural to have the night lit up like its daytime. Its also wasteful. Unlike a popular movie, I don't believe we need to be lit up enough to be seen from space!
Submitted by Jeff Montgomery (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 21:37.
Having trash cans is not worth the price of allowing an anti-human message on them.
Avoiding impacts on Earth should *not* be a goal for humanity. The endgame of such a quest is the elimination of the human species. After all, that's the only way to truly avoid making a mark on our planet: death. Even the most rabidly self-abnegating cave dweller still has an impact on planet Earth.
Instead, we should worry about protecting the individual rights (i.e. freedom) of everyone on the planet so that we will have the ability and the finances to solve whatever problems arise, such as what to do with trash, greenhouse gases and such, if indeed such things really pose a threat.
I say "if", because there is no such thing as a fixed quantity of resources that we must frantically preserve. Human ingenuity always finds a way to expand resources, provided it is left free to do so.
Unfortunately, the same principle of self-sacrifice that PETA advocates, in which they ask people to give up meat, is the principle that demands we sacrifice our individual freedom to the state by forcing environmental regulations on entire nations, thus crippling the engine of the Industrial Revolution: the energy industry. It is morally wrong, and wrong for the practical survival of humankind. That is why the message is ultimately anti-human.
If you partner with PETA to allow messages like that, it's the principle of humanity's right to think it is worthy of survival and flourishing that you are compromising.
