PETA received a call from governor Sarah Palin’s office this week and Palin’s spokeman Bill McAllister wasn’t in the mood for laughs.
Yesterday morning, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk took a call from someone in Sarah Palin’s office, demanding that we pull down a new online game that involves pelting the Governor with snowballs. When she asked for his name, he yelled into the phone, “Just take the game down or you’ll read my name on the lawsuit.”
Within a few hours of our posting information about the call on our Web site, the Governor’s communication director, Bill McAllister, emailed (he must have been monitoring to see if the call would have the desired effect), and our President had an interesting follow-up exchange with him. I think the threat, exchange, and game would make an interesting item (note just how rude Mr. McAllister becomes).
Sarah Palin is a bully who never saw an animal she didn’t want to kill, so it’s not surprising that her staff would try to intimidate us anonymously and then backtrack when called out. Our game represents a fun way to focus attention on a very serious subject—cruelty to animals supported by Sarah Palin and the other targets of the game—and we have no intention of taking it down in response to these pathetic attempts at intimidation.
Here’s a link to the website for those who would like to lob a few snowballs at her.
I have no respect at all for this odious pageant queen but it is still hard to believe she would be so stupid.
There is no bottom to the perfidy of the religious right.
OOOH. 600 points on the Palin stage!
They treat Palin like bleep and then expect her to be nice to them?
If they didn’t get the reaction they wanted they are brain dead.
#1
What on earth does this article have to do with the religious right? Does Palin now represent all Christians and anyone of faith? No where does this article say anything about the “right” wanting this game removed. It’s simply another bone-headed move by Palin and/or her people.
It’s so odd how quick people are to stereotype with no cause.
Meh, should have read #1 dammit. Wish you could edit comments.
[Fixed – ed.]
#4–giant==religious types are supposed to take their “oaths” more seriously than non-religious types. Sarah took an oath to support the US Constitution and as such is supposed to respect, honor, and protect the first Amendment–aka==the right to make fun of Politicians.
Instead, she blasphemes by attempting to make herself a false idol before which we are to do nothing but offer alms and silent praise.
So, yea, I could have simply referenced politicians, or self-important people in general, but the religious element is still a modest enhancer.
So in sum:
Peta “took a call from someone in Sarah Palin’s office.
Palin’s office inquired:
“That’s not very specific. Who called? Name and title given? Did you even attempt to verify it was genuine? Or are facts just cumbersome?”
Peta: “Do they train you to be rude?” “Sarah Palin is a bully who never saw an animal she didn’t want to kill…”
Oh, also:
“…video game”
“a new online game…”
“Our game represents a fun way…”
“…the game”
RBG
Read the emails, bobbo, or don’t waste our time.
For all the proof given, I’m inclined to believe that PETA is just making crap up because they haven’t gotten as many clicks on their little game as they wanted, so they drummed up some way to get attention for it.
The email convo is pretty childish, but it’s clear that one side asked for details and the other side (PETA) doesn’t have details to give.
I refuse to support either.
I’d rather see a game where PETA people are pelted with bloody animal carcasses…….or maybe if it wasn’t a game and it was real….yeah that would be better
#6
You’re absolutely right…Sarah Palin…took that oath, not “the religious right”. If you had said Sarah Palin was a bad example and left it at that I would have had no argument with you. It sounded like yet another stereotypical comment regarding of “all those” on the religious right.
I’m sure it was Bush’s fault too. 😉
Who the hell cares what Palin OR PETA does?
Cursor_
#6 – bobbo,
religious types are supposed to take their “oaths” more seriously than non-religious types.
Sorry bobbo. I agree with you on a lot of points. But, not this one. Why would religious folks take their oaths more seriously? Religion doesn’t teach morals. That people know which parts of the bible to ignore proves that fact. So, I don’t see why nontheists should not be held to the same standard (high or low) as the religiose.
PETA is a bunch of loser who attack people in public, damage private property, and trespass and assault people they don’t like in their own homes.
Their statement about Palin, “never meeting an animal she didn’t want to kill.” is ignorant, extremist rhetoric which doesn’t deserve refutation.
Palin engages in a legal pastime, hunting. PETA breaks the law at will because they can’t accept the fact humans are omnivores.
Screw PETA and all other terrorist groups.
Couple of questions:
1) Has anyone made it to a high enough level to know whether at the higher levels we get to start throwing wolf shit?
2) Which PETA was this, this PETA or this PETA?
#8–Don’tbother==I think you have me there. As I stated, even I was surprised Palin would be so dumb, corrupt, false to her oath. The emails presented are not credible. Well, there’s hope for the beauty queen yet==if she spent the next 4 years getting an education and curiosity about the world.
#11–giant==if you would just add: “all those on the religious right who are also in political office” then I think we will have met each other half way.
#13–Scott==you ask: “Why would religious folks take their oaths more seriously?” /// because they are pledging to their God. Non religious types don’t have that extra condemnation. Afterall, if you and I lie, cheat, and steal, we still have to get caught and convicted. Not so with the religious types as god sees every sparrow that falls. So, its VERY DIFFERENT!!!! Yes, the law requires the same obedience from both groups, but we aren’t confused by that are we?
I think it would be fun to toss the radical right and radical left people together in a room and lock the door.
Another petty bullshit story of people villainizing each other .. sheesh.
#16–HMyers==define “radical” so as to separate it from “blow-hard?”
#17 – bobbo,
#13–Scott==you ask: “Why would religious folks take their oaths more seriously?” /// because they are pledging to their God. Non religious types don’t have that extra condemnation. Afterall, if you and I lie, cheat, and steal, we still have to get caught and convicted. Not so with the religious types as god sees every sparrow that falls. So, its VERY DIFFERENT!!!! Yes, the law requires the same obedience from both groups, but we aren’t confused by that are we?
I still disagree. God’s not going to actually do anything because there isn’t one. I don’t lie, cheat, or steal for the same reason the vast majority of religious folks don’t.
We have consciences.
If religious folks were really worried so much about the god thing, crime wouldn’t go up during a blackout. God can see in the dark, right?
(And, no, there aren’t enough non-theists in the world to account for the looting during blackouts.)
#18–S-c–o–tt!!!!!! This is one of those cases where whether god exists or not is irrelevant. It truly does come down to an issue of belief. I do chuckle that the religious are no better than us and thereby are worse than us by way of hypocrisy==but still, you shouldn’t shift perspectives while making comparisons. Not kosher!
I’d much rather have you rip me on Israel or Global Warming.
PETA needs a global protest targeting animals causing untold daily suffering when ripping the living guts out of other animals.
RBG
#19 – bobbo,
OK, we’ll agree to disagree. And, I’ll continue to hold myself to high morals despite the lack of threat from above. And, I’ll continue to believe that most people do the same and don’t think about the threat from above when making every single moral decision.
It’s all a matter of opinion on such things. There’s not a good scientific basis (other than the known location in the brain of the morals processing centers and the known common bases (basises? nah.) for morals across many cultures with and without religion even down to hunter gatherer societies with little contact with the judeo-christian-islamic world).
No. I lied. I’ll have to live with that. I can’t resist. I need to ask. Why don’t most religious folks stone people to death for breaking the commandments, e.g. working on the sabbath?
Morals do not come from the bible. Those who think they do either have psychotic morals or are fooling themselves. Religious folks are decent people for the same reason nontheists are.
Overall, we are moral animals. Our morals often suck for not including other species or members of groups of humans we don’t think of as Us. And, some people may have deficient morals processing centers or just be actively terrible human beings, or both. But, most of us are generally mostly moral most of the time, at least by the pathetic standards of our species.
And, that from a misanthrope.
#20 – RBG,
Oh that PETA. Dang!! I was thinking of the wrong PETA!!!
#21–Well Scott==you shouldn’t ask a question and then answer it all by yourself. Thats just a bit “self-involved” don’t you think??? I ask my self: “Would I EVER do that?” And I know the answer is NO.
But you destroy another canard of the religious community. Where do morals come from? The Bible===Hah!!! Certainly Not, as you have pointed out. Morals are another Darwinian adaptation for the genome homo sapiens to outcompete the other homo’s. Anyone trying to follow “the morals” of the bible would be seen as a psychotic criminal of the worst sort. Yet they still sell that gibberish at every opportunity.
Scott, it must be a glimmer when you first wake in the morning: not mis at all. There needs to be a root word for “Having High Moral Standards and Constantly Disappointed” because that is what you more accurately are.
Man I don’t know. This smacks like PETA is trying to pick a fight, then cry wolf.
Sounds to me more like a PETA wet dream.
#22 – bobbo,
Funny. I thought everyone who posted on a blog just to read their own words in print was a bit self-involved. So, um … yup … what’s your point?
As for a word for what I am. The list is long. Misanthrope certainly applies since I hate our species. The list would also include pessimist, cynic, liberal, antitheist, progressive, and many other labels beside. In fact, I’m sure if you ask others here, the list will not sound so positive.
As for that glimmer when I wake up, I’ve never experienced it. I’m way too pessimistic for that. On the other hand, in addition to having more fingers, I am sometimes pleasantly surprised. This is why pessimists are happier people. Optimists are never pleasantly surprised. Pessimists are never disappointed.
Misanthropic Scott , is it that you hate our species, or you hate what it does?
#25 – Thinker,
I don’t believe the two to be separable. I hate our species because of what we do.
Someone(who I refuse to name)called me from PETA and demanded that I contribute to their cause or be sued, really.
#27
The next time you see people from PeTA go and eat a turkey drumstick in front of them just to piss them off.
The only reason the militant women in that organization are volunteering for a sterilization is because them bitches are afraid that pregnancy will show them what the real priorities are.