Pamela Anderson boycotts Kentucky Derby in PETA protest - Page 2

Luna · February 16th, 2006, 03:50 PM

E-mail
-----
To whom it may concern,
Today, unfortunately, I have some very serious news and an urgent request for your help.
Like most Americans, you are probably shocked to learn that our beloved horses are still sent to slaughter, by the tens of thousands, every year. Americans don't eat horsemeat -- there simply is no domestic demand for it. But last year, more than 90,000 American horses were either killed in one of three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States or shipped to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. Our thoroughbreds, show horses, mustangs, carriage horses, and family ponies are shipped in inhumane conditions and butchered.
The Humane Society of the United States has been fighting for years to end horse slaughter, and last year in two landslide, bipartisan votes, Congress passed measures to prevent the use of tax dollars to fund horse slaughter inspections. President Bush signed the final ban on November 10, 2005, and it was scheduled to take effect on March 10, less than a month away. This was a huge victory for America's horses and those of us who want to protect them from cruelty and abuse.
Never did we imagine that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), an administrative agency charged with carrying out Congress' will, might betray the members of Congress and the Americans they represent. But unbelievably, the USDA, with its ties to the livestock industry, says it will not implement this Congressional mandate. These bureaucrats are obviously hell-bent on allowing the slaughter of America's horses and they're moving forward with a plan to buck Congress' slaughter ban.
Since the USDA has ignored the will of Congress and the American people, The HSUS is taking the agency to court. Just this morning, we filed a lawsuit with a coalition of animal protection groups in federal court to block the USDA from carrying out its illegal plan. Concerned horse advocates like you helped us win a year-long ban on horse slaughter, which was set to go into effect on March 10, and we are not about to sit by and watch this victory slip away.
It is clear that we can not rely on the USDA alone. We must urge Congress today to pass a permanent ban on horse slaughter. It is the only way we can put our horses out of the reach of agency bureaucrats who will apparently do anything to keep American horsemeat flowing to French and Belgian chefs. Their actions are shameless, and they must be stopped!

1. Take action. We have no time to waste -- Congress must act now and pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act this year. Click here to contact your members of Congress.

2. Spread the word. Most people are shocked to learn that our horses are being slaughtered and shipped overseas for human consumption.

Knowing that hundreds of thousands of our loyal companions have already been slaughtered is simply devastating. Please stand with us and do everything you can to spare the lives of our horses. With your help, I know we can prevail and save tens of thousands of American horses from the butcher block. We all must take action now to save these horses from a grim and painful end.
Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

ConstanceSpry · February 16th, 2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_perfect

Love her or hate her, Pamela Anderson gets media attention, which is what the animal rights community needs. And she's not the only one: more and more people in Hollywood are speaking out for animals. I've found that I like Pam more now that I know she's so dedidated to animal welfare, and I bet a lot of other people feel that way too.

Same here, I couldn't stand her until I found out she is an animal person. That makes up for a lot of sins in my book.

On the other hand, I completely loathe the likes of J Low, Beyonce, Star Jones, etc. since I found out about their indifference to animals.

SVZ · February 16th, 2006, 04:50 PM

What about all the monkeys that have double Ds so Pamela could get safe FDA-approved breast implants?

dragonlady · February 16th, 2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyMix

Yes. Pam seems like a good person with a big heart, a great mom, has lots of convictions and actually she's very intelligent regardless of people's misconceptions.

See, then why doesnt she use all those qualities instead of perpetuating degrading stereotypes, dancing on poles, and generally acting like a come-hither-and-fuck-me (pardon the language) slut? If she's so intelligent (maybe she is, maybe she isnt, I dont know) she could have used that to set a positive image for females, and then maybe idiotic males who THINK she's how all women should look wouldnt just stare slack-jawed at her because she's some plastic barbie doll boy toy. Her fame is based on her store-bought, silicone-stuffed chest. Thats pathetic. She may be a good mom or whatever but I think she's doing women a HUGE disservice, and contributing to the attitudes of these dumbass sex-starved guys that seem to be everywhere. I have no respect for women like her, especially if she's intelligent, because then she has other options. But thats just my opinion.

SVZ · February 16th, 2006, 05:05 PM

Could someone explain the mindset between Christina Aguilera and these 'types' of women when they say, stripping and revealing themselves is empowering?

dragonlady · February 16th, 2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVZ

Could someone explain the mindset between Christina Aguilera and these 'types' of women when they say, stripping and revealing themselves is empowering?

Yes, please do! They might be getting men's money, but in the long run men just see them as objects, and how exactly is that empowering?

dragonlady · February 16th, 2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyMix

I never said I find it empowering nor do I call her a whore. The fact is, she is doing something worthwhile with her celebrity status unlike the vast vast majority of celebrities.

Sorry, I didnt mean to say that anyone in particular had said that. I just thought it was a good question. Still, I think that just because she's doing something worthwhile doesnt mean she shouldnt be held accountable for her other actions, since I believe she contributes more negative than positive.

dragonlady · February 16th, 2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyMix

I hear you but I disagree completely that she contributes more negative than positive. There will always be scantily clad women out there for men to ogle. Most all of those women will use their 'status' for personal gain only. Pam uses hers for animal rights and many other charities and causes.

I also understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, that support for charities comes at a pretty high price. I just dont feel that the end justifies the means of getting there.

SVZ · February 16th, 2006, 05:29 PM

Then why does Angelina get bashed when she does 'good'?

SVZ · February 16th, 2006, 05:34 PM

it just seems a bit hypocritical to me, the only difference between the two is that pamela is a larger overt slut, and she helps animals not children.

moomies · February 16th, 2006, 06:35 PM

I would say that some human athletes are also forced into sports and some get fatally injured though you might argue that humans have free will.
e.g. boxers get brain/head injuries, auto/motor race drivers could get killed instantly in a crash, football and ice hockey players could suffer from spinal injuries, knocked out teeth etc
Yes, they could quit the sport if they wanted to but there's fame and money to be earned and peer pressure, parents expectations, families to support etc which force most athletes to continue despite the brutality of some sports.

ConstanceSpry · February 16th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moomies

I would say that some human athletes are also forced into sports and some get fatally injured though you might argue that humans have free will.
e.g. boxers get brain/head injuries, auto/motor race drivers could get killed instantly in a crash, football and ice hockey players could suffer from spinal injuries, knocked out teeth etc
Yes, they could quit the sport if they wanted to but there's fame and money to be earned and peer pressure, parents expectations, families to support etc which force most athletes to continue despite the brutality of some sports.

Those pressures are self-imposed. If they choose to continue to please their parents, peers, etc., it's their choice. Animals have no choice.

moomies · February 16th, 2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Those pressures are self-imposed. If they choose to continue to please their parents, peers, etc., it's their choice. Animals have no choice.

Yes, I totally understand that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moomies

I would say that some human athletes are also forced into sports and some get fatally injured though you might argue that humans have free will.
e.g. boxers get brain/head injuries, auto/motor race drivers could get killed instantly in a crash, football and ice hockey players could suffer from spinal injuries, knocked out teeth etc
Yes, they could quit the sport if they wanted to but there's fame and money to be earned and peer pressure, parents expectations, families to support etc which force most athletes to continue despite the brutality of some sports.

I'm just saying that brutality also extends to us humans.
I think that some ppl like the aspect of violence in sports, it is exciting for both the athelete and the audience. It might be human nature whether it is right or wrong.