PETA needs to get priorities straight, eat lamb chops

Tim Paluch

Last week, Ames found itself the subject of national news stories. It seems the government was transporting some heavy duty materials cross-country to this fair town of ours. And no, it wasn’t Jeremy Peterson’s bloated sense of self-importance.

It turns out some 250 sheep, possibly infected with mad cow disease, were transported to Ames from Vermont.

But the sheep were not alone, as animal-rights advocates from around the country showed up to promote a vegetarian lifestyle, protest animal testing and, of course, prostitute themselves for the local news media.

Sometimes, animal-rights groups stand up and fight on behalf of important matters.

And sometimes they look like idiots who make you wonder exactly whom we should be euthanizing.

It seems the animal rights group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, didn’t agree with the ever crazy USDA, who had this wacky idea that euthanizing 250 sheep, that are going to die anyway in order to learn more about a potentially catastrophic disease, was a good idea.

Those nutty USDA goofs are up to their old tricks again.

Now, I am a big fan of PETA. It is my opinion that PETA is quite good, especially with a pound and a half of greasy gyro meat, onions and some cucumber sauce on it.

Hell, you can put just about any slab of any part of any mammal on a PETA and watch how quickly my carnivorous instincts kick in without the faintest regard for that particular animal’s rights.

It is my personal belief that animals are here for a reason, and that reason is for me to fry them and dip them in honey-mustard barbecue sauce.

If God didn’t want me to eat meat, I wouldn’t be able to fit a double quarter pounder with cheese in my mouth without dislocating my jaw first.

And it’s a known fact that even Jesus was a big-time meat lover, known to toss back a slab or two of baby back ribs (but not on Fridays).

But I’ll admit, when they’re not telling college students to drink beer instead of milk or rant about how evil I am for eating steak five times a week, animal rights organizations take the right stance on a lot of issues.

Is it really necessary to pour bleach down a cat’s throat to make sure it’s not for human consumption? Probably not.

Should we use dogs from animal shelters as cadavers in college biology classes? I’m going to vote no on that one, too.

After all, I do consider myself a supporter of realistic animal rights.

Now if you ask me if we should kill 250 sheep to study an epidemic-like disease that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands of sheep if it spreads, I’d say yes, yes we should.

Those sheep are martyrs, dying for the good of sheep everywhere.

Sure, those sheep everywhere are going to end up on my pita, but that’s not the point here.

If they were Catholics, these sheep would be canonized. We shouldn’t be crying over their deaths, we should be grateful they’re taking one for the team.

Groups like PETA really need to prioritize the way they worry about the world’s problems.

Instead of attacking all those meat-eaters out there and complaining when the government tries to save the lives of animals by conducting research on a handful of suffering sheep, battles need to be chosen more carefully.

Come to think of it, there is one kind of animal out there that you never see PETA fighting for: humans.

I don’t know about most people, and maybe I am crazy, but I think the unethical treatment of humans takes precedent over that of farm animals bred for slaughter.

There’s a 14-year-old boy in Florida facing life in prison without chance of parole.

Children are killing children in public schools on a seemingly regular basis.

Workers are making 30 cents a day making that pretty little Gap V-neck sweater you’re wearing.

And then there’s PETA making sure people know they’re not fond of my hot dog-eating habits. Yeah, thank God for that.

If they insist on wasting time on trivial public-relations campaigns in which they fail to be realistic, groups like PETA could be more beneficial to the world if they just changed their focus.

Maybe they can change their name.PETH, People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans, perhaps. That way, to them, innocent inmates facing the death penalty would get some of their attention, rather than a cow whose sole purpose on earth is to feed me.

What exactly would satisfy PETA? What makes up their vegan utopia? That I can’t figure out.

Do they really expect all of us to live on seaweed and oat bran? I think I’ll take the two-day-old lamb chop, thank you.

Maybe they would be satisfied if we just released all of those “captive” farm animals. Would that make them happy?

That way, the cows can ravage the country’s farmlands, leaving us with no vegetation to eat, because there would be nothing left after the millions of emancipated cattle get through with lunch.

Would they have been satisfied if, when the government got to Ames, they saw that the massive crowd of seven protesters meant business and just let the infected sheep roam free?

They would have been hit by a truck quicker than you could say “pass the mint sauce.”

Protest should have a motive. It should not be an excuse for media whores to take advantage of a situation to push an agenda.

There are animals in this world being mistreated; that’s not debatable. PETA needs to focus on some of these important issues – maybe then they can earn some credibility with the mainstream pork-chop eaters.

I think it’s safe to say most people, whether vegetarian or not, don’t like to see animals being harmed for any particular reason.

As long as the only time we see PETA is when they are making fools of themselves, people like me are going to continue to write opinion columns about them, questioning their motives.

Oh, and by the way, notice if you replace the P with an M and switch the last two letters, PETA becomes MEAT.

Coincidence? I think not.

Tim Paluch is a junior in journalism and mass communication from Orland Park, Ill. He is wire editor of the Daily.