PETA’s 2010 State of the Union…. Undress
Love them or hate them, the marketing team at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) always seem to come up with a new way to effectively captivate any audience, and get their message across.
Their latest video, is their 2010 State of the Union Address Undress:
PETA’s 2010 State of the Union Undress
Thoughts?
While some might be offended by the objectification of women in this ad, from a PR point of view, this is a win/win situation for PETA. First, they get the attention of the media… I found out about it from Fox News. Second, they get the attention of their weakest demographic: Men.
So, love it or hate it, in today’s “sex sells” market, sometimes this is the extreme organizations will go to in order to get their message across.
One way to ensure a short-lived Democrat majority: Rush healthcare, stall Brown
I read a startling article yesterday regarding various contingency plans being tossed around Democrat circles in Washington and Massachusetts, preparing for the prospects of Scott Brown defeating Martha Coakley, in what could be one of the greatest political upsets of the 21st Century.
From the Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON—With the Massachusetts Senate seat unexpectedly in play, Democrats are weighing alternative scenarios for passing a health bill without their filibuster-proof majority.
Congressional Democrats and the White House have rapidly stepped up the pace of negotiations on a final bill in the last 48 hours as polls showed a tightening race in Tuesday’s special election.
But Senate leaders need every one of the 60 votes they can call on—including two independents—to pass the bill. A Republican victory in Tuesday’s special Senate election would deprive them of that margin.
It’s also possible that vulnerable Democrats could bolt after a defeat, leaving more votes to make up. Even a narrow victory for Democratic contender Martha Coakley—in one of the nation’s bluest states—could unnerve fellow party members.
Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership circle in the House, acknowledged Friday the Massachusetts race would “complicate things if we lose.”
While we’ve known for awhile what was at stake with this special election, it’s disgusting to see what “nuclear options” are being proposed and considered by the various Democrat caucuses.
So far, four options have come to light: Move Quickly, Pass the Senate Bill, Use Reconciliation, or simply Give Up.
This obviously poses a challenge for the Democrats.
Should Scott Brown win, they’re going to have to select one of the four options mentioned above if they want to get their health care bill passed. Unfortunately for them, no matter which option they go with (other than waiting it out and hoping for a miracle), the current Democrat majority is going to lose a huge chunk of their base, those who lean more towards identifying themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats.
Not only will the Democrats lose popularity amongst there base, but they’ll also lose a significant amount of political capital, which is essential during an election year.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they’ve set up a legislative agenda that will fracture them even more should they not maintain a safe number of reliable votes. After all, this Congress still hasn’t been able to come up with a cap and trade policy that is popular with the American electorate.
Luckily for the GOP, if the Democrats aren’t able to hold Ted Kennedy’s seat, and their filibuster-proof majority, I think it’s safe to say that the Dem’s are going to into a tailspin between now and November, essentially writing their own attack ads, paving the way for a Republican victory.
Credit Where Credit Is Due
For those who don’t know, I rarely agree with our erstwhile savior on much of anything. I have been known to call him silly names like “Dear One,” ” Messiah” and other such veiled epithets. However, one cannot be critical of somebody’s policies, without sometimes admitting that, on occasion, the person in question actually did something well. To do otherwise would be nothing more than demonstrating what a snickering baboon one is (Rush).
So it came to pass that Barack Obama gave a pretty decent speech on the occasion of his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded for what one presumes is possible future action. Much printer ink has been spilt on the vagaries of how such an unaccomplished man (at least at the point he was nominated in late January) won such a prestigious honor and I am not going to rehash it here. Rather, in focusing on Obama’s remarks we see a man that actually admits the necessity for war. Obama, waxing on the imperfections of man, states that in some instances, it behooves the good people of the Earth to destroy those forces of evil that seek to enslave and terrorize the innocent. Needless to say, it was a welcome change of pace from his continual bashing of the US insofar as he also recognized the need for the US to step in and fight evil from time to time (presumably when it is not tyrannizing Native Americans and African Americans).
Obama further counseled that the US must use its great power wisely, and that though we do have the power to obliterate, we should guard against such wanton use of power ensconced in blatant moral chauvinism. We are not always right, and I suppose we shouldn’t always act as if our proverbial shit doesn’t stink.
As leaders of the free world, it is incumbent upon us to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Why on Earth the Bush administration never fully disavowed torture is beyond me. It is common sense that leaders set an example. Why should others follow us when we can’t even forgo a practice that is abhorrent, vile and mostly ineffective? Even from a RealPolitik standpoint it is much wiser to assert a no-torture policy and lie about it than spend years denying water-boarding is torture (it is).
So what does this all mean? Has Obama actually turned the corner and come down from the heights of cloud cuckoo land? Or should we take the more cynical approach and snidely remark that he was simply trying to throw starch into his poorly received, and defeatist speech given at West Point? Who really knows at present.
So, like Josey Wales, our beloved Dear One gave the world our words of life and our words of death. But will those words, like his vacuous promises of Hope and Change, ring hollow by his lack of action?