- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Listen, I admired PETA for putting forth the vegetarian agenda as a healthful and slightly more moral lifestyle and for pointing out how unnecessary it is to wear the fur of another animal.
But I draw the line at PETA tying vegetarianism in with an environmental message. Give me a f***king break! Pamela Anderson and Paul McCartney suck up more resources in one month they my whole family does in a year, vegetarian or no. Paul McCartney has not adhered to a replacement level of family planning, and if the pregnancy rumors are true, neither has Pam Anderson. So please, PETA, don't go down this road, unless you get new spokespersons.
Don't get me wrong, I have always loved McCartney's music (with the Beatles) and I have nothing against him personally, and I am indifferent to Anderson. I just don't think that most celebrities, with a very few exceptions (Ed Begley, Jr. comes to mind), are the people to be telling ME that I am using too much of the Earth's resources.
Which is only a small part of the problem. The U.S. no longer has any moral authority to tell other countries how to manage their resources. That's like a person who has been rich for years telling a poor person, "Take it from me, you really don't need money to be happy." What hubris. Besides, since Shrub has not signed or cooperated in any global initiatives on global ecology or birth control our "bully pulpit" (Shrub's favorite term) has been splintered beyond repair.
Americans can tend to our own house, but please, let's not embarass ourselves with the lecturing. Even the other posters on the boards who claim to be forgoing children in the interest of ecology sound a little nuts to me. Really? Are you sure there are no other reasons? If so, fine, your decision is further reinforced by ecological concerns, but don't try to fool people into thinking this is your only motive.
