June 20, 2009:

Let me just say that I sometimes escort bugs out of my house instead of killing them. It's not exactly high on my list of priorities, though. In fact, I actively seek out and kill the ones that really trouble me. You know--mosquitoes, earwigs, cockroaches, etc.

Sometimes I kill flies, too, and I don't lose any sleep over it. They're not endangered. They also have a nasty habit of landing on pet feces, having an appetizer, then coming over to the lunch table for their main course. So I consider them pests when they hang out around me.

Apparently PETA doesn't agree, though, and felt the need to "speak out" when the President swatted and killed one during an interview. Give me a break.

I usually try to avoid believing the networks' TV news. It's not that I think they're literally telling me lies; I think that what they present as facts truly are facts (usually, at least). No, I have a different reason to try to keep their messages separate from my own beliefs. It comes down a question of, "Why do they bother?" Why report the same stories over and over, forcing global issues into the sidelines, reporting whatever's most sensational, rather than whatever provides the facts most relevant to viewers -- when the world has over 6 billion people going through their unique lives every day in their own unique locations and circumstances? What's the point of showing us all of those police chases, football games, pop stars, and political pandering, when there are plenty of real global crises to report on?

As those who know me might have predicted, my usual (and arguably unhealthy) irritation over the TV news kicked in immediately when I saw a story tonight about PETA's latest spotlight-grabbing TV commercial, but this time, something was different. This time, the story somehow pulled together my scattered impressions of PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

PETA has always been, to me, like an ethical hangnail: not really that important, yet fascinatingly difficult and painful to address. I never knew whether to cheer them on for their intense dedication to the humane treatment of animals, or to denounce them for sometimes crossing the line between responsible activism and reckless, glory-seeking showmanship.

Tonight, I got some resolution. While I watched the shallow TV coverage, I finally realized what should have been obvious all along: PETA is the wrong kind of organization on the right side of an issue. I know that there are varying viewpoints among its members, but as a group, PETA plays by an ever-shifting set of rules that encourage conflict, rather than cooperation. What kind of way is that to make the world a better place?

The latest ad, as you probably already know, is an ironic twist on the anti-teen-sex messages that sometimes mingle with the commercial ads on TV. You know the ones: "How do you know your daughter isn't having sex with every boy, girl, and animal in your city? It's up to YOU to keep her under constant guard. The Penises are everywhere, EVERYWHERE! Don't let her out of your sight!" (OK, not 100% accurate, but close enough and much more amusing than the originals.) The PETA ad begins the same way, with an everyday couple talking to their daughter about sex. Have lots of it, they say, we wouldn't want to have you out NOT having sex with someone! It then makes the argument that because you wouldn't tell this to your children, you shouldn't let your pets have unplanned offspring, either. I found the ad somewhat amusing, but it also made me wince when I thought about just how many people they were alienating. For many adults, teen pregnancy is not an acceptable topic for jokes.

The effort to have pets spayed and neutered is shared by all kinds of people, some of whom are doubtless very upset about the lighthearted treatment of the teen sex issue. I normally wouldn't care very much, but this wasn't the first time I saw them use the "shocking message" tactic. The last one I remember implied that, because beer production doesn't require poor treatment of any animals, it is a better beverage choice than milk. At the time, I thought to myself, well, the commercial probably won't make people drink any more, and some of the anti-alcohol messages annoy the hell out of me, so let it rip! A part of me was uncomfortable, but I figured it wasn't really worth worrying about.

Now I know better.  PETA is like that one unpopular person in a meeting who talks a lot about how bad a problem is, demanding "immediate action," and then quietly leaves everyone else behind to figure out how to accomplish one mission without sabotaging another. A representative of the SPCA, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), was asked her opinion on the T.V. news. I watched as she struggled to distance her organization from PETA's unpopular tactics while supporting the message about animal welfare. She looked pained and bewildered, as if her dentist had just performed a root canal on the wrong tooth.

Sure, there are real problems with dog and cat overpopulation, and with the way animals are treated in large agribusiness operations. Sure, it's an uphill battle. Still, deliberately agitating other people is usually a mistake, and should be avoided if there's a way to reach the same goal without giving the world around you a big middle finger.

By making confrontation such a common feature of its advocacy, a group like PETA only makes it easier for its audience to dismiss activism as nothing more than mindless grandstanding. I agree with most of PETA's policy goals, but their style is just wrong.

As an activist for some of the many worthy causes out there, all I can say to PETA is a very sarcastic, "Thanks." To the TV news programs that felt the need to present this as "news", I say, "Congratulations. You just sent every obsessed nut job within broadcasting range a message: 'Be as offensive as you can, and we'll spread your message far and wide.'"