With Friends Like These…
July 24, 2003
Dear Mr. Novak:
I am writing on behalf of my friends at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as compassionate consumers across the globe, to urge KFC to implement PETA?s list of eight simple things that need to be done to reduce cruelty to chickens raised and killed for your carry-outs.
For example, I would like to see KFC stop allowing chickens to be bred and drugged so that they become so heavy that they cripple under their own weight, end the starvation of birds who are constantly hungry because they are bred to grow too quickly, stop burning the beaks off parent birds, and make sure slaughter methods do not permit animals to be scalded to death in feather-removal tanks. As you know, full details of PETA?s recommendations are available on KFCCruelty.com. They are based on the scientific work of KFC?s own animal-welfare advisors and would eliminate only the most horrible abuses of these animals.
If KFC suppliers treated dogs or cats the way they treat chickens, they could be charged with the crime of cruelty to animals. I am a vegetarian because I realize that even little chickens suffer pain and fear, experience a range of feelings and emotions, and are as intelligent as mammals, including dogs, cats, and even some primates. These remarkable animals are deserving of at least a little kindness.
Please let PETA know that you will end the most egregious forms of abuse endured by chickens raised and killed
for KFC.
Sincerely,
Sir Paul McCartney
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510
July 30th, 2003
snail
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
part 2
When we talk about the Saudi?s as a group we run the risk of simplifying a somewhat complex set of political and religious circumstances. As you know they have no representative form of government and therefore cannot be treated like other nations that have a system of checks and balances. Voicing our distrust of the ruling family would not lead to them being replaced in an election? It is more likely that it would further weaken there hold on Saudi Arabia and lead to an overthrow of the Al Saud family. We could see the Al Saud replaced by what we saw in Afghanistan ? a much more fundamentalist, extremist group of radicals and in turn they would be in control of a major part of the worlds oil/economy.
The Bush administrations like the many democratic and republican administrations before them know that Saudi Arabia controls a good portion of the world?s economy because of its oil. People often make the mistake of thinking of oil as the stuff that drives them around but really oil is in just about everything we do and by destabilizing that flow you in turn send shock waves out thru every part of the world economy. Every president knows that it would threaten the economy so they play nice with the Saud family knowing that behind the scenes the clerics are continuing to spew there anti American/Anti Jewish rhetoric.
There are definitely bad apples in the Al Saud family but to lump them all in as ?those Saudi?s? would be a mistake. This most recent effort to finger all Saudi?s as conspirators ignores some of these basic observations about the structure of Saudi Arabia. It perplexed me for years as to why each successive American administration coddled the Saudi ruling family with all of their political, personal and religious oppression but I think I am starting to understand that they basically have us by the balls and until we find a way to turn air into energy they are going to continue to be treated like the royalty that they are.
Brian
Thursday, July 31, 2003
ANWAR, anyone?
We’re all aware of the reality involving Saudi Oil. They definitely have Bush & the United States by the balls, but come on! It makes the Bush Doctrine & “those who harbor terrorist” threat look ridiculous. Obviously, we have no idea what is really said behind closed doors when Bush meets with these Saudi officials. They could be much more cooperative behind closed doors than we know. It’s a tough job keeping all the little bin Ladens satisfied in the Kingdom. I must agree taht they were very helpful in keeping oil prices stable/down during the War. They could truly wreck America’s economy if the wanted. But that does not make up for the fact that they fund the spreading of Wahhabi brand Islam all over the world, they sponsor Jerry Lewis-style telethons to fundraise for Palestinian terrorist, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, etc….
As Lenin said, “What is to be done?” True, economic stability is the foundation of National Security. Our anti-Saudi rhetoric may not have been the best example of what Henry Kissinger would call “Realpolitik” , but I dont apologize for it. If Bush cant scold them publicly, at least allow the American citizens to vent a little.
PS: I know that ANWAR would not come close to matching the number of barrels coming out of Saudi Arabia, but it’s a start.
snail
Thursday, July 31, 2003
But what about the Porcupine Caribou? (Long, slow zoom to an Indian on a horse holding an oil soaked baby Caribou in his arms and a single, glistening tear running down his frosty cheek. The mother Caribou looks up to him and says with her computer generated mouth ?Is there anything we can do to save her?? The Indian slowly shakes his head ?no? ? we hear this no echo through the once pristine wilderness that is now covered in oilrigs and Chinese buffet?s. The soundtrack is some cello - very sad indeed)
aaaand cut - Its a rap folks! Vote Nader!
Brian Noel
Friday, August 01, 2003
If they started drilling on Monday, that commerical would be up & running by Tuesday evening. Maybe they could use an authentic Indian this time.