Actress and Honorary Chair for PETA, Pamela Anderson—yes, she of “Baywatch” and a moutful of Tommy Lee fame—has penned (in eyeliner, presumably) an op-ed for today’s WSJ that decries the use of real chimpanzees by Hollywood.
Let’s have a look, shall we? Writes Pamela:
King Kong is my hero. He’s big, muscular, sensitive, a terrific actor—and he’s not real. The use of computer-generated imagery has really taken off in Hollywood. So why has Madison Avenue suddenly gone bananas for real apes? Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, with at least 95% of the same DNA. We’re closer to them than they are to gorillas, so when I see chimpanzees being used as on-screen comedians, dressed up in silly costumes to sell credit cards, I think, Is this any way to treat a relative?
Well, as I pointed out the other day while addressing the ridiculous Spanish Socialist government’s idea to extend “human rights” to, well, non-humans (it’s high time Apes are given the franchise, after all), we also share 99% of our genes with mice, but I suspect that were Ms Anderson to run across one of them while rooting through her makeup cabinet for some nipple rouge or hair wax, she’d order one of her Latin houseboys to kill the dirty little beast.
But beyond that, other humans share a full 100% of our DNA, so why not feel their pain when some of them are forced, by circumstance, to do those embarrassing Taco Bell commercials just to make ends meat?
After all, not every actor can pump up his or her tits and land a plumb job with Hasselhoff, right?
Continues Ms Anderson:
This issue has been on my mind a lot lately.It started when my kids went on a field trip to what was billed as an exotic animal refuge in Malibu. I excitedly tagged along only to find that it was like a shabby petting zoo that rents lions, tigers and a fascinating pair of chimpanzees to productions like “The Gong Show” to perform pathetic tricks under lights in front of loud crowds—conditions that are very stressful. I chose to have that kind of life; these animals didn’t.
Interestingly, they also never asked you to speak for them, Pam. But don’t let that stop you.
And what makes you are so sure that they don’t like being petted (because let’s be honest, who doesn’t?)—or that such a constant show of interest from strangers doesn’t, you know, turn them on? I mean, if chimpanzees are as close to us as you seem to think they are in terms of their attitudes to a set of specifically human social conditions, perhaps some of them are exhibitionists, too.
They just don’t have the streaming video to prove it.
But I digress. Please, continue:
In the wild, baby chimpanzees and their mothers are inseparable. Moms carry babies with them as they forage and sleep in the same nests with them at night. Chimpanzees start climbing and eating on their own when they’re 3 years old, but never stray far from mom. They’re not independent until 7, so it broke my heart to learn that the chimpanzees used in ads and shows are babies, snatched from their mothers when they’re infants so they’ll be manageable in front of the camera. While it’s possible to train animals using only kindness, as Jane Goodall pointed out, “this requires the kind of time and patience which is usually lacking in the fast moving world of ‘show biz.’”
A primatologist who spent 14 months working undercover for a facility that trains great apes for film and TV saw trainers kick and punch the animals to make them obedient. Bright, energetic chimpanzees were reduced to zombies who cowered in fear of being struck. These same chimpanzees were later seen at an “animal sanctuary,” which compassionate people were charged $200 to visit. Most abuse by “animal trainers” goes on behind closed doors, where the PR teams that dream up ad campaigns featuring costumed chimpanzees—and the consumers buying their products—never even see it.
Does this primatologist have a “name,” Pam? How about these “trainers”? Because we already have “laws” against animal cruelty—so this would seem “sufficient” to punish such abusers.
And if we know that such abuse is happening behind closed doors, well, that kind of undercuts the secrecy, doesn’t it?
As for being reduced to Zombies…have you seen the last couple seasons of “Will & Grace”? Who is looking out for Sean Hayes, Pam? Where is Debbie Messing’s champion? WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION FOR THE SUFFERING HUMANS, MS ANDERSON?
That’s just the beginning. By the time chimpanzees are 7, they’re stronger than Vin Diesel and can pull your head off. When they can no longer be disciplined, they’re abandoned like trash. Zoos don’t want them, and the few sanctuaries for abused apes can’t possibly take them all.
…Which explains the virtual infestation of gangs of roving, decapitating zombie chimps that are wrecking havoc in the streets of our cities, threatening to put both the Jamaican and Russian drug syndicates out of business…
So they’re sold to tawdry attractions, or to breeders who churn out even more chimpanzee babies for “entertainment.” A performing chimpanzee’s life consists of about seven years of being lugged around sets and then 40 years of being caged, often in solitary confinement.
Oh. My bad. But really? How is this any different from, say, Jonathan Taylor Thomas’ life? Or that strange little kid from “Who’s the Boss?”
I’ve vowed never to be involved with a production that uses live apes because I don’t want to be a part of this cruelty, and I bet you don’t either. Let’s drop the curtain on ape “actors” by sticking to animatronic animals or willing human performers for our ads. It’s not like there’s a shortage of struggling starlets willing to embarrass themselves if it means getting on TV.
Good idea, Pam.
And when the hardcore politically active feminists start agitating to replace womyn actors with animatronic / CGI “females” because they consider it degrading for women to parade around in skimpy costumes, reduced to a celluloid commodity by heartless “showbiz” types whose goal it is to seduce rapidly misogynistic menpigs to movie houses with the promise of a flash of pudenda or a perfectly lit glistening breast (see, for instance, Basic Instinct 2—or Barbed Wire, for that matter)—when they presume, that is, to speak for all women in the same way you presume to understand what’s in the heart of chimps—I hope you’ll be just as understanding about their cause. Because after all, what can be more “cruel” than knowing that somewhere out there are a bunch of “struggling starlets willing to embarrass themselves if it means getting on TV,” the majority of whom will never make it, and will be abandoned like trash?
There just aren’t enough waitress jobs to accomodate them all. And so who can in good conscience deny that our hypothetical feminists aren’t acting in the best interests of those poor mistreated women—who are, let’s face it, victims of poaching talent scouts and unscrupulous agents who snatch these poor victims from their natural habitat (humanities departments) with the promise of placing them under bright lights and dressing them in silly costumes and giving them seven good years of Hollywood fame…?
(h/t Rusty Patton)
Hey Pam, who’s gonna “speak for” the now brain-damaged baby that Brittney Spears and her gigolo huband Kevin Federline are “raising”. The poor thing has been bounced off the floor like a basketball and now she’s pregnant again!
That’s a truly heart rending tale that needs to be addressed by a air-headed, breast-augmented, Playboy-posing, Tommy Lee-blowing “role model” such as yourself. After all, those kids are even closer “relatives” to us humans and the parents
probably share both your tax-bracket and IQ.
I dunno, Jeff. I think she’s got a point. And the bit about what struggling starlets will do to get attention . . . she’s either smarter and funnier than I thought if that’s self-irony, or just plain funnier.
Or maybe you think she’s just a hypocrite, because we’re not sure what species Tommy Lee is. Anyway, a woman with a rack like that doesn’t HAVE to try and make a difference, you know, and just because Spanish socialists want to give them rights doesn’t mean the Screen Actors Guild has to accept them.
Just a random thought, would it be reasonable to assert that rights are to be granted only to those critters that are sentient and self-aware?
BECAUSE OF THE RACK-OCHRISY!!!
First its Martin Sheen telling me how to vote, now its Pam Andersen telling me how to treat my chimp.
You’ve gone to far Hollywood. Too far, I tell you!
I wonder how long it took Pam to come up with that little gem of a line? 2-3 hours?
Based on the recent revelations by his son’s ex-wife, perhaps Martin Sheen should spend more time
warning son Charlie about the dangers of gambling, whoring and viewing internet child porn, as opposed to telling all the rest of us how to live, think and vote?
Then again, maybe that’s where Charlie got his “talents” in the first place.
Now now, let’s not be too harsh on “the rack of Anderson”. As far as intelligence goes, we will judge her by her track record. After all there is a certain genius behind Tommy-Lee and Kid Rock. I think she should spend more time raising money for the prevention of Hepatitus….Maybe an ape fetish perhaps?
I’m thinking that this op-ed by Pamela “Check Out My Huge Boobs” Anderson is proof positive that breast implants are indeed hazardous to a woman’s health.
Her mental health, that is.
TW: Pamela is getting to the point of pure insanity.
Does this mean I have to give back my Trunk Monkey?
Intentional or merely lucky: “to do those embarrassing Taco Bell commercials just to make ends meat?”
Good write-up. But how does Miss Pam explain why some chimps like “Cheetah” good and others like Bushchimpler bad?
For someone that promotes spanking the monkey, methinks she doth protest too much.
Aborted human fetus share absolutely 100% of our DNA.
Any “progressive liberals” want to debate about their rights?
…crickets chrip…
I’ll respect an animal rights when animals petition for them. Otherwise, they’re for eating.
What is it with PETA and breasts. Is PETA searching for breasty women because they understand that sex sells. Or do these big breasted blond airheads attach themselves to these ditsy causes because it is all they can get their simple minds around.
TW: The truth is there are starving children in Africa and all these idiots can worry about is apes.
Guess those Chil-Fil-A cows were talking to you, then, William.
TW: I’m mostly full of shit, but at least I’m aware of it.
Bad math, Jeff. We share 90% of our genetics with mice (all mammals, actually), not 99%.
Chimps score 98.7% – our closest relatives.
I for one would be willing to grant LIMITED rights to the Great Apes – protective only, no voting rights.
Orcas, too. But that’s as far as I go.
Dan Collins already remarked on what I noticed. Pam has genuine wit to go with her, um, other attributes. I’ve seen her interviewed by Conan and Letterman enough times to conclude she has a kind of self deprecating charm. That “starlett” line at the end is pure Anderson.
That said, her cause is nothing but an unfunny joke. PETA is a deeply nuts, decicidedly anti-human, borderline anarchist, and occasionaly dangerous organization.
TW: natural!
Dude. Orcas eat seals, man.
That’s not cool.
Dunno about you, by my ends already are meat.
They laughed at NOAH to
lets see
we rape the earth of every resource
we bomb and kill each other by the billions
we trash and dump on every inch of this third stone from the sun..and along comes this woman
just giving a voice to the voice-less
oh but we are humans
we have more rights than the animals…
says who ..?
give it a break son
your up to your neck in your own crap
look around
or maybe its fear of a blond with an opinion
how low can you go?
when you can wipe your own ass
get back to me
I have an ark to build –
yo Pam pass me that hammer
Someone has an awfully high opinion of herself.
Still…Pam does give great head.
(from what we have seen…anyway)
Jeff,
A small correction—it’s Hasselhoff with two “f”s.
Of course, his peak wasn’t Baywatch. Rather, it was his cover of “Hooked On A Feeling.”
BECAUSE OF THE OOGA-CHUCKAS!!!
Karl–
Did you just tell Jeff to Hasselhoff? Because he’s the host, you know.
Kong, learn the haiku rules. You aren’t even close.
Is King Kong Pamela’s hero because he’s not real? Or because he’s got an electric schlong?
mojo –
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOLPHINS!?!?!
And the elephants. Don’t forget the elephants. And I like cats, too.
Definitely not cows. Taste too good. And, well, dumb as fenceposts.
I’m not sure I want to share 100% of my DNA with Pam or the Sheens… can we just call it 99.4% and be done with it?
I don’t know. I think that they could resurrect the Baywatch idea with a PETA twist. Imagine Pam as a member of the Kircudbrightshire Hedgehog Rescue Society, helicoptering to a hedgehog emergency and running to succour the poor little blighter in SUPER-SLO-MO.
Thanks to this thread, I just realized something. When I told the pollster three years ago I was in favor of invading, I thought he was asking if I wanted to invade a rack.
Boy do I feel duped.
What? You thought I was making that up?
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/directory/print.php?ID=367
Bastards.
Says me. Why do you ask?
McGehee–
Surely you were against the policy of containment?
Lawrence Stern, in his “A Sentimental Journey Through Italy and France,” described the phases of life an 18th Century French woman progressed through: daughter, lover, intellectual, deist. Like Jane Fonda before her, but with bigger implants, Pam Anderson is recognizing that her 40+ years of boobage has had its run, and is trying to transition from a woman admired for her ta-tas to a person admired for her politics. Like Jane, who at 68 is well into her religious rebirth, Pam is following a well worn path to respectable middle age. But, as in the Stern story, the age at which one stops being sexy and starts being smart can be delayed for years by the admiration of a flattering man, or in Pam’s case, a damn good plastic surgeon.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOLPHINS!?!?!
What about ‘em? I’m interested in intellegence, not cuteness. Rights are for sentient (and pre-sentient) animals only.
If the Porpoises aren’t smart enough to avoid tuna nets, they probably don’t qualify.
Performing on stage is very stressful for animals? These animals were taken from the wild, where everyday is a struggle for survival.
I’m not saying I know which situation the chimp would freely choose, but I do know which situation is more stressful.
PETA – Pam Eats & Tastes Animals
Austin Mike–
The Lawrence Sterne citation is good, but doesn’t Brigitte Bardot provide a more salient example for Ms. Anderson?
Also, humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas. Does that make you 55% banana?
Top half or bottom half?
The left has never understood the concept of “rights,” much less “natural rights.” They don’t understand that rights are totally contrived. We made all that shit up.
Rights don’t adhere in DNA or particular species. They aren’t natural like body hair is natural. They’re natural like language is natural. For a right to be worth anything at all to anything at all, that thing has to be able to understand the abstract concept and then change their behavior to be consistent with it, along with all of the other monkeys. Chimps don’t have the cognitive ability to do this. And because they can’t, they have about as much use for “rights” as they have for Moliere.
And besides, like Jack Handy says, if God didn’t mean for us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?
yours/
peter.
Hmmm.
Great!
Now pretty women are complaining if I spank my monkey?
My life is fucking dead. Game over! Game over man!
As it regards any middle aged “transition,” there’s a saying that holds true, no matter the amount of plastic surgery:
Beauty fades, but stupidity is forever. Think about it.
Hey, I’ve read Dean Koontz—it could happen!
But fortunately, the superintelligent dogs are still on our side.
Bardot is indeed another example of an aging sex object becoming politically involved, especially as she had better breasts than Jane Fonda…..
But Bardot has not yet gravitated to the religious, unless her animal rights activism can be considered religious. Fonda has gone full-frontal Christian, completing the path laid out in A Sentimental Journey.
And yes, Dan, I did leave the final ‘e’ off Sterne. That college class was long, long ago. Long ago, enough, that I remember Bardot’s charms from her movies.
“God made woman, but the devil made Brigitte Bardot.”
Go, devil. You da man!
Only she didn’t age very well, did she? I mean, she wears more scarf than Tony Curtis.
Damn right. Not only that, I was one of the first calling for pre-emptive honks.
…and don’t call me Shirley.
Let’s hear it for underwire!
 And a serial sexual harasser, and a stalker, and…
Well, you need a loaf of bread about eight feet long, and a LOT of mayo…
THE FOOD CHAIN
Lets make it a fair fight, no weapons
Man vs Mother Nature
THE OCEAN
1.Shark – Great White
well we didnt do so good – did we
ON LAND –
1.Lions,Tigers and Bears
oh my
look at you now…lunch for kitty
but hey we are humans and we rule …
as long as we have a gun …
yeah and a drive by is a real mans sport to
not so tuff are yah now,
tooth,
fang and claw
I am no PETA supporter, but placing animals in situations of danger or fear for the sake of our entertainment troubles me.
In the case of chimps, part of the schtick is often to get them to bare their teeth in what looks like a shit-eating, ear-to-ear human grin. But chimps don’t do this because they’re happy, they do it when they’re terrified.
Is this sort of thing morally equivalent to abortion, or the genocide, or other forms of cruelty to humans? No, of course not. But just because it does not descend to the lowest level of barbarism doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong, either.
There is a difference between killing animals for food and terrorizing them for entertainment. We need food, and eating animals is natural for humans, just as it is for other carnivores (chimps themselves eat ants, I believe). But we do not need chimps dressed up in little suits, holding cell-phones to sell some product or service. There are plenty of alternatives.
To summarize, I’ve gotta respectfully disagree with you here Jeff. I read the editorial itself, uninterrupted by your sniping, and she makes a moderate, reasoned argument. You may disagree with it, or you may feel there are more important things to worry about, but isn’t it one of the Left’s most risible tactics to ridicule the messenger while avoiding the issues themselves?
One does not need to be a PETA extremist, or buy into the absurd idea of giving apes citizenship rights, to believe that cruelty to animals for the sake of sport or entertainment is wrong.
but hey we are humans and we rule …
as long as we have a gun …
Actually humans rule because humans have a better weapon than a gun, that is, a mind.(moonbats notwithstanding) Long before the gun, humans used tools(pointy sticks, slings, arrows, and such), devices(traps, snares, clifts off of which animals were run, and such), the training of other animals(hunting dogs, horses, falcons, and the like), the raising of animals for the sole purpose of consumption(whether for their meat, hides, skins, or whatever), and fishing equipment(line&hook, nets, spears, etc.).
To try and equate animals with humans is mind-bendingly stupid(but still on a level incomprehensable to a monkey), and to try and separate humans from nature is intellectually dishonest if not just plain ignorant.
It is a very telling fact that the large urban centers are of the liberal, politically environmentalist type. They are soooooo, ignorant of what nature is really all about, and just how magnificent the world really is, that they lack a true view of reality.
To be fair though, Pammy baby probably does have a closer tie to apes than the average person…
Good, let’s take them off the endangered species lists. 6 billion naked apes vs. ~2000 big kitties, yeah I think we’re holding our own pretty well.
LagunaDave,
Don’t buy the bullshit, the monkeys aren’t grinning because they are terrified. They Have been trained to do that, and every other cute shtick, just like Bengie the dog was trained to do his tricks, and likewise is lavished with love, praise, and attention. To imagine that those animals have it worse than their wild relitives being stalked by leapords in Africa is the silliest notion those magnificent mammeries could have wrought you.
Maybe there should be an abortion program for simeans to save them from the horror.
just a thought.
I’m sorry Dave, but did you just suggest that I’m engaging in leftist tactics for having a bit of fun at Pam Anderson’s expense?
As for the message: I don’t think this problem is remotely widespread, nor do I believe these animals are mistreated the way Anderson suggests.
I thought I made that clear by pointing out that she didn’t name any sources, just simply made assertions.
Sometimes you need to step back and not take things too seriously, man.
I am a big animal lover. But I don’t think Apes deserve human rights, and I certainly don’t think Pam Anderson has earned the right to speak for chimps and against those who use them in the entertainment industry without proof of abuse.
Note: no animals were harmed in the posting of this comment.
I thought I was getting pretty good at being able to tell when you are having fun, and when you’re serious.
This take-down was a lot longer than your typical drive-by satire pieces, and came across to me as rather mean-spirited.
As for sources, it was an editorial, of course, not an investigative journalism piece, and she did cite a primatologist, although not by name. This press release identifies her as one Sarah Baeckler. This website is the home of the campaign that Anderson is part of (along with Jane Goodall), and contains further information, including this report, with photos, on the “undercover” operation.
So, I think there is prima facie evidence that she did not just invent what she wrote out of whole cloth and has contacts who could be in a position to know what they are talking about. Furthermore, the campaign does directly involve her own profession (Hollywood), so it not really like Alec Baldwin waxing eloquent on geopolitics, or Tom Cruise prescribing medication for post-partum depression.
That doesn’t mean she is right, or that we have to agree with her, but I don’t think that bringing her bionic mammary glands into the discussion edifies anyone…
“…for a change…”
That doesn’t mean she is right, or that we have to agree with her, but I don’t think that bringing her bionic mammary glands into the discussion edifies anyone…
Would never discount your strong opinion on this subject Dave and you’re, of course, entitled to it.
But when you have surgery to get a couple of volleyballs installed in your chestular region, I think you have to be ready for your huge tits being brought in to every discussion.
It’s PETA. I just went through the site and the pdf and it’s certainly a soft-sell, but of an extreme position. A position that has it’s roots in this weird neo-Calvinistic idea that human beings are interlopers on this “natural” planet and thus our interactions with it must be strictly curtailed and controlled by power.
PETA certainly has some points to make regarding human cruelty toward animals, and for me at least those points are well taken, but those points don’t make their unrelenting totalism, “a rat is a dog is a pig is a boy,” any less irrational or unworkable.
yours/
peter.
Okay.
<grabs pliers, pulls out all the animals’ teeth and claws—they being weapons, after all>
Let’s rumble.
Cruelty to animal by humans exists, there’s no doubt about it. But it’s not institutionalized like Pamela suggests. You do not get well trained animals by abusing them. You get cranky and dangerous animals. It’s hard enough working with dogs, but who wants a pissed off chimp on the set? Please.
Hollywood may put out some real stinkeroo movies (Barbed Wire comes to mind for some odd reason), but I doubt that the contractors who support the movie making industry with the animals will intentionally put a bad-tempered animal on the set, not with the resulting lawsuits from an animal attack. For all their posturing as well-meaning socialists, capitalism is alive and well in Hollywood. The dollar rules.
PETA is simply following it’s normal tactics of blowing something out of proportion, and then trying to send out a message using accepted advertising industry practices. In this case, Pamela Anderson (“sex appeal”) is pushing the “Apes Are Human” meme.
Which is rather like having Tarzan’s sidekick, Cheeta, campaign for John Kerry. Less the artificially enhanced human mammary glands, of course.
Again, this strikes me as very similar to what I hear from a lot of clue-deprived lefties. The President sometimes mangles his syntax, which those with no means to intelligently debate something will often pull out as the one-size-fits-all reason why every word and policy of the President should be mocked.
Compare:
“‘Is our children learning?’ – Bush is a total idiot!”
with:
“She had freaking volleyballs implanted in chest – Anderson is an idiot!”
Anderson’s decision to enhance her breasts seems to have been a brilliant business decision, which gave her a successful career and a no-doubt very comfortable life-style that few of us will enjoy. Couldn’t we just as well say that in at least one instance, she has shown herself to be rather clever?
I’m not making that argument, just pointing out that the argument “enhanced boobs = stupid” is not a necessary proposition.
Also, it appears that the proprietor of the animal training company (Amazing Animal Actors) has been investigated, convicted, sentenced to jail time, and fined by the USDA for a variety of abuses. His rap sheet also includes various fraudulent business practices.
Yes, the linked “Fact Sheet” comes from PETA, but virtually all of the allegations are matters of public record (and no, I do not have the resources to fact check every item). It is unfortunate that PETA has a track record of “crying wolf” (if you’ll pardon the species-ist slur against Lupine-Americans) and making extremist claims, which means one must view all their statements with some skepticism. But their unreliability does not mean that they don’t uncover and highlight real abuses in some cases, and this may be an example.
I’m glad to see that you are providing a well written counterargument, LD. I can’t say that you wrong, because there have been animal abuses. This is not arguable.
OTOH, Pamela makes the argument that ”Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, with at least 95% of the same DNA”, so that she can conclude ”Is this any way to treat a relative?”
I hope that you’ll understand that she lost me right then and there.
See, there’s an species on this planet that shares 100% of human DNA. This species is known as “people”.
Are you aware that PETA is against the production and use of insulin because it harms pigs? Yet insulin saves lives. Insulin allows people to be productive and live a normal life.
PETA is an anti-human organization. They’ve done some good things, but I believe that’s more by accident than by intent.
[BTW, at least one senior PETA member (Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland uses insulin daily. Ponder that little discrepancy, please.]
Since I tend to be pro-human (with some specific exceptions), I don’t trust PETA. Their values are not mine, their objectives at cross-purposes to mine.
Add in the fact that the owner of Amazing Animal Actors was tried and convicted by existing laws for animal abuse (thus pointing out that we already have effective enforcement on this issue), and I reach for my salt shaker when PETA/Pamela Anderson speaks.
So it’s not just Pamela’s breast enhancement (which has been a standing joke since the days of Bay Watch, as I recall) that stirs my reaction. It’s PETA trying to foist their anti-human campaign on us by being oh-so-polite and friendly.
Their using a has-been bouncing boob actress entering her declining years is merely snark material.
The real JeffS  Assuming the pacemaker holds up, Cheetah is actually being considered for the nod as Kerry’s VP in ‘08…
Again, this strikes me as very similar to what I hear from a lot of clue-deprived lefties. The President sometimes mangles his syntax, which those with no means to intelligently debate something will often pull out as the one-size-fits-all reason why every word and policy of the President should be mocked.
“enhanced boobs = stupidâ€Â
So Dave, you’ve called me Presidential in my mangled syntax and then you quote what I wrote and then project your opinion of large-breasted women onto me. Whereas I merely pointed out that if you go to the trouble of having huge implants, people will notice.
Don’t fuck with what I write Dave. It’s not cricket and it makes you look well, you know, dense.
GMG, Cheeta as VP? I would think that Kerry would the VP candidate, and Cheeta as the Prez……
You two hang out on Castro Street much?
Dude, I had to google “Castro St.” if that tells you anything.
How do you know so much about it?
LD, you should know something else about PETA. It is the biggest killer of puppies in the Norfolk, Virginia area. Last year a couple of their volunteers went to North Carolina, collected a large number of puppies, killed them and left them in a dumpster.
How do I know this? I work in Norfolk and wrote about it when it happened.
The interesting thing about this is that PETA is unrepentant.