Monday, June 19, 2006

PETA's 'Vegetarian' Celeb says 'Everything's Better With Bacon'!

This isn't the first time PETA has deceptively promoted a carnivorous celebrity as an anti-meat activist, but it just might be the funniest. Last year we told you about Sarah Jane, an Australian model featured in PETA's anti-chicken advertisements, whose fan website listed her favorite foods as raw meat, lamb kidney, lamb curry and haggis. This time around it's Reese Witherspoon -- a PETA-promoted "sexiest vegetarian" who can't seem to get through the day without eating bacon.

Witherspoon appeared last week on Ellen Degeneres' popular TV talk show, and toted along a crock-pot to demonstrate her favorite recipe (coq au vin -- yes, with chicken). When the host asked about the ingredients, she replied: "Everything you cook in the crock-pot, cook it with bacon ... Everything's better with bacon and brown sugar."

It's worth noting that the International Vegetarian Union (IVU) also claims that Witherspoon is a vegetarian, apparently owing to a 2002 appearance on The Rosie O'Donnell Show during which (according to the IVU) she "described the advantages" of meatless eating "and how much she loved it." But like many celebrities in PETA's stable, Witherspoon was a less-established B-Lister back then. Four years later, the Walk the Line Oscar winner has come into her own -- and apparently prefers bacon to the PETA ego-boost. Will Alec Baldwin be next?

Source



Bush signs troubling 'decency' bill

It's hard to define obscenity. What one person finds repulsive, another finds illuminating. What's acceptable on HBO may not be right for the Disney Channel. What passes for normal behavior on South Street may not fit the community standards of Wichita. But at least with obscenity, we have those not so helpful "we know it when we see it" parameters. "Indecency" is a whole other matter.

That's why Tattle is troubled by legislation signed by President Bush yesterday raising fines for broadcasters who exceed "the bounds of decency." Whatever happened to reining in big government?

Bush said the new law, which increases fines tenfold to $325,000 per incident, will force industry figures to "take seriously their duty to keep the public airwaves free of obscene, profane and indecent material." Oh, Janet Jackson's barely-exposed-for-a-micro-second-nipple, what have you wrought? Defined by Merriam-Webster as "grossly unseemly or offensive to manners or morals," "indecency" is even harder to determine than "obscenity."

Many might consider Ann Coulter's much-publicized descriptions of 9/11 widows as indecent. Others consider criticisms of the president, especially during wartime, indecent.

The raunchy humor on "My Name Is Earl" or "Saturday Night Live" in many homes would not pass the decency meter. Many unassuming pop songs on the iPods of children throughout the Bible Belt would be labeled indecent if their parents knew their lyrics.

Hasn't most of political discourse become indecent? We have colleagues here at the People Paper who think Tattle has crossed over the decency line on occasion. Video of a murder victim on the local news? Certainly, that could be viewed as indecent. But worth a fine? We've heard conversations on "The View" that turned our ears red. Can we now fine Joy Behar and Star Jones for talking about vibrators? Such talk should get a mouth washed out with soap. So where do we draw the line? And who gets to draw it?

"The government's own data show that the vast majority of complaints come from a handful of people encouraged by activists to complain about these shows, and not the viewers themselves," said Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, an interest group that includes NBC and CBS and opposes government regulation of television programming. "The disparity between the millions who tune in and the few complainants is further evidence that Americans do not believe the government should control what they watch on TV."

The president disagrees. "Unfortunately, in recent years, broadcast programming has too often pushed the bounds of decency," Bush said. "The language is becoming coarser during the times when it's more likely children will be watching television. It's a bad trend, a bad sign." Yes, the world's become a coarser place. But in a capitalist democracy, where there are endless choices, legislating morality never works. The "off" button, however, does.

This move won't curb the tide of angry hate speech which seems to be on the rise - and which is really indecent - or get the children it's alleged to protect to watch their p's and q's. They're all off playing violent, expletive-filled games on their Xboxes.

Source



Australia: Outrageous prisoner requests spark overdue backlash

A transgender prisoner has lodged a discrimination complaint because he was refused female toiletries in jail. The armed robber, 29, demanded hair removal cream and an exfoliating brush. He also wanted skin cream, and a treatment soap and shampoo.

The complaint has outraged Corrective Services Minister Judy Spence, who described it as one of a string of "frivolous complaints" lodged by inmates. "We are not running motels, we are running prisons," Ms Spence said.

Male prisoners are issued with a comb, soap, disposable razors, toothpaste, toothbrush and shampoo. They can buy shaving cream, shampoo and conditioner, soap, moisturiser and deodorant - but not hair removal cream or an exfoliating brush. While female prisoners can buy hair removal cream, the brands wanted by the armed robber are not available.

The complaint has prompted Ms Spence to order a review of all entitlements. It comes after The Sunday Mail last week revealed she had launched an appeal against a $2000 payout awarded by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to a child sex offender because he was not given meat prepared in the Muslim way. "When you go to prison you lose certain rights and entitlements that law-abiding Queenslanders take for granted," Ms Spence said. She said the review of entitlements would look at sourcing practices, value for money, how to address prisoner nutrition requirements, religious and cultural preferences.

Source

No comments: