The Problem with PETA

Consider diagram #1:

Teeth not Tongs

Further evidence of “animal cruelty:”

An Eagle eating some meat


A Wolf eating some meat.

Wolf Eats Meat

A Snake squeezing a mouse to death. Then eating some meat.

Snake Eating Meat

A female Lioness eating some meat from a striped horsey thing called a Zebra.

Lion Eats Meat

A Polar Bear eating some meat. Quite possibly a cuddly baby seal…

Bear Eats Meat

GI Joe’s – Big Game Huntin’


Oh wait… sorry.

Hopefully, by now you get my point.

Evidence of Human Cruelty



Cruel and Disgusting.


Cruel Beyond Belief:

Jar Jar

So Cruel that only – a double middle finger in your face, followed by a cannonball fired at your junk, while being forced to watch the movie Titantic and Spice World back to back while listening to this-
could even come close in comparison:

Ultimate BSOD

Follow Up – PETA Quote

In regards to the Time conjecture article I posted about yesterday:

While PETA doesn’t take a position on any candidate, Ingrid offered up the theory that Mitt may have “what neurologists call an ‘absence of the mirror neuron,’ a physiological condition in the brain which means they cannot feel basic compassion.”

I am certain that PETA is fully qualified to make neurological analysis of subjects based on a hear-say story from over 20 years ago…

How can you be Pro-Choice…

…and support the “fairness doctrine?” Attaboy breaks it all down.

UPDATE – and down the chute it goes:

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

Sadly – the amendment doesn’t require the 115 representatives who voted against it to eat large quantities of crap.

Time Magazine Sinks To New Low

I know – you must be shocked…
Strap yourself in and get a load of this bull. First – the headline:

Romney’s Cruel Canine Vacation

…and no – this is not a story from Mad Magazine or The Onion. Here’s the intro to the article talking about “the incident” in 19 FREEKING 83!!

The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe’s profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, “emotion-free crisis management”: Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest.

Waste Your Time Read Article

Later in the article, writer Ana Marie Cox, follows a quote from PETA – (who state that, “the dog was, basically, being tortured,”) with a tie in to Romney’s stance on interrogation techniques in regard to terrorists.


This story is so far reaching, so absolutely absurd…I don’t even know what to say. Cox, as well as the pathetic editorial staff at Time, should be ashamed even for considering publishing this garbage. If I had to dig all the way back to 1983, to someone’s family vacation – just so I could write a desperate flailing drive-by hit-piece article like this one – I would be demoralized.

Also, I would be especially embarrassed to include anything from PETA as a serious qoute. PETA’s beliefs can hardly be grounded on any remote shard of rational thought. Obviously – they haven’t spent one iota of brain power observing nature, or they would have discovered that in the wild, animals kill each other constantly. (and in brutal “inhumane” ways). As a side, If they are so concerned with animals – they should do us all a favor and leave civilization themselves and go try to survive in the wilderness. Oh – and they should have to do it completely butt naked, without tools or survival training. (more about PETA to come on WTC…)

And where would you expect an article with this caliber of stupidity? Try the front page top 6 stories on Time’s website!

Cruel Vacation

This article is a disgrace to journalism and if I was the manager at Time Magazine, I would fire Ms. Cox on the spot just for putting forth the effort. But then again, given Time’s track record – they probably commissioned it. Allah at Hot Air has it exactly right.

“Looks like they save the really big scoops for their most esteemed reporters.”

Time Magazine deserves “the sewage treatment” for this self-deprecating crock.

Sewage Time

Still think the media is un-biased?

Bear Grylls Eats Sheeps Eyeball

“…it’s like chewing gristle full of cold gloop.”

Fairness Doctrine – aka: Make Them Listen

I have been following the stories in the news about the so-called “fairness crocktrine doctrine” lately and I think it is something that people need to clearly understand. I was going to write my own opinion about this slippery-fish of an idea – but it turns out, there are already so many people addressing the issue that anything I could say has already been said (and probably more eloquently). So – I am going to include a series of quotes, articles and video/audio clips below for you to review. Please take a few moments to educate yourself.

In the spirit of “fairness:”

You are about to read something that you may not agree with. Note that I am not forcing you to agree with me. Neither am I forcing you to read this blog. It is by YOUR choice that you are here. YOU must decide what you think for yourself. YOU are not obligated to continue visiting WhatTheCrap? if you do not wish to be here. Not only that – If you disagree with my point of view – you are free to express your opinions below in the post comments or you can go somewhere else.

Most importantly -ask yourself this question:

Do I require the Government to decide for me what is “fair?”

If your answer to the above question was “yes” – please remove you hand from your mouse (it’s the round shaped object under one of your hands that makes little clicky noises when you press your fingers on it) and press the power button on your computer until the screen goes blank. If you don’t know what a power button is – refer to the picture below:

Socket - Unplugg

By now, you may be beginning to see my point. Here come the articles and quotes (My own thoughts will be in italics):

On The History of The Fairness Doctrine

“Beginning in 1949, the Federal Communications Commission and its precursor developed and enforced the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. However, because of the lack of clarity in the Commission’s ruling, broadcasters opted to offer non-controversial programming in lieu of hours of paperwork or countless legal fees.”

-Rep. Mike Pence

“The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communication Commission regulation that dates back to 1947. Under the regulation, station licensees were considered “public trustees” that had an obligation to present multiple perspectives on public issues. In the 1987 case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled the regulation was not mandated by Congress and the FCC was not obligated to enforce it. As a result,the FCC discarded the Fairness Doctrine.”

Amanda Carpenter

Basically, at one point in history, there were only a handful of tv and radio stations available – thus – the concept of “fairness over the airwaves”, at the time, made some sense. Now the internet exists, there are hundreds of TV stations, and thousands of different things to listen to on the radio. The “fairness doctrine” was rightly – discarded. But wait – some want it back…

The Fairness Doctrine Will Rise Again

“Since 1985 when FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler announced that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment and harmed the public interest, the Left has been in a state of denial. They believed that the constitutionality of the Doctrine would ultimately be upheld as it had been in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC in 1969. And since 1987, when the Doctrine DID go away, the Left has never stopped trying to bring it back.

In that very year, Congress tried to contest the FCC’s abandonment of the regulation. Legislation to fully restore the Doctrine made it to President Ronald Reagan’s desk, and he promptly vetoed it. Another attempt to bring back the Doctrine in 1991 failed when President George H.W. Bush made it known that he, too, would veto such a measure.

The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993, sponsored by Ernest Hollings (D.-S.C.) in the Senate and Bill Hefner (D.-N.C.) in the House would have placed the Doctrine into law, but it went nowhere.

As of 2007, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio), and Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D.-N.Y.) are announced supporters of returning the Doctrine. But perhaps the most up-front proponent is Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) whose MEDIA ACT (HR. 4710) would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and ensure that broadcasters present discussions of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

Now comes California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, telling FOX News Sunday that talk radio “pushes people, to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.” And when Chris Wallace asked her if she would revive the Fairness Doctrine, she said, “I’m looking at it because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side” On that same telecast, Republican Sen. Trent Lott had to respond to his comment that “talk radio is running America and we have to deal with that problem.”

Then, theres a new 40-page report from the Center for American Progress and the Free Press entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio.” The report laments the right wing domination of talk radio and discusses how to end it. One of the authors is Paul “Woody” Woodhull, who has a stake in the issue since hes a financial backer of two liberal talk hosts: Ed Schultz and Bill Press.”

Lynn Woolley

Speaker Pelosi has reportedly promised to “aggressively pursue” revival of the poorly-titled “Fairness Doctrine,” whose regulations would mandate that radio stations featuring the views of conservatives like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, or Bill O’Reilly “balance” those views (in the name of diversity) with an “equal” dose of, say, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, or Thom Hartmann – all proven failures in a free radio market.

Alan Sears

And, of course, everyone’s favorite has-been chimes in:

“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…”

– John Kerry

Thanks John! Without your divine wisdom I wouldn’t know any better, because obviously, I’m just another one of those mindless sheep conservatives that believes everything I’m told. Meanwhile – back in reality-land: People chose freely not to listen to Liberal Talk Radio – thus their ratings flew into the crapper faster than Dysentery Gary, and they couldn’t drive ad revenues.

Sadly, the You’re-All-Brainless-Peasants Ride doesn’t end here. Even some Republican leaders are whining about fairness because they had to answer opposition to the recent pathetic amnesty bill sham. Here’s senator Trent “Talk-radio-is-running-America” Lott:

“The above clip is a wonderful way to start the week. It’s Trent Lott and Diane Feinstein discussing the intricacies of the immigration bill and the Fairness Doctrine. Actually, they’re not so much discussing the intricacies of the immigration bill as saying you can’t understand said intricacies unless you have the kind of giant brain that only a Senator typically possesses. Certainly it’s ludicrous to suggest that a creature so lowly as a talk-show host has the kind of intellect necessary to comprehend this brilliant piece of legislative legerdemain.”

Dean Barnett

Here former Ed. Secretary Bill Bennett’s take

“…People who not only speak well, and are interesting and worth listening to, but read and think about these issues… These are very thoughtful people.” –Bennett

The Reality Of “Fairness”

Free Market. Oops – I gave it away…

“The best way for people to understand this is that a country western station succeeds because people know it’s a country western station. They know any hour of the day or night if they punch that button into their car radio they are going to get country music. They don’t expect that the country music is going to be balanced by hip-hop or the Metropolitan opera.”

-Michael Medved

“The organization’s report, titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” expresses a need to “close the gap” between conservative and Left-wing programming. It also advocates increasing “ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners,” which in the Left’s view would lead to more “diverse” programs. So instead of capitalism, we get the Leftist cure-all: quotas.

In a free market, the listeners decide which radio programs live and which die. Forcing stations to operate not on the basis of ratings and ad revenue, but in an ideological and multi-cultural affirmative-action system that dictates “fairness,” is not only unconstitutional – it’s downright Soviet. It’s offensive to the economic marketplace; it’s suffocating to the vital marketplace of ideas.”

The left-wing’s failure to capture anything beyond a tiny niche market isn’t the fault of the FCC, nor of the dormant Fairness Doctrine. The “blame” rests with radio listeners who came, listened, and chose to tune out of “Dead Air” America.

-Alan Sears

Pence takes steps to clarify and stop the “fairness doctrine.”

If they won’t choose to listen, we’ll just make them.

Firstly, the whole idea is ludicrous. How in the world would you regulate something like this? Who is going to be the non-objective overseer that decides what is a fair viewpoint? What is considered fair? Would only two views have to be presented? To be truly fair – wouldn’t you have to present all views (an impossibility)? Would Christian radio programs have to also provide a Jewish view, a Muslim view, a Satanist’s view, and an Athiest’s view? Absurd, I say!!

Here’s the real bottom line: People freely choose to listen to talk radio. No-one is forcing them to agree. I would venture that most people (especially conservatives) that listen to talk radio, do so because they want to be more involved and hear what’s going on. They are free to call in and voice their opinions. The reason conservative talk radio does so well is because people choose to support it. The reason Air America’s ratings are in…


…and they’re bankrupt is because people don’t support their shows.

So, if people won’t freely listen to Liberal Talk Radio, what’s the next step?

Make them listen to it.

That’s what the “fairness doctrine” really comes down to. The government will legislate away people’s free choice of what they want to support. Classic Big Government thinking. And yes, you ought to be fired up about this by now. This is the epitome of What The Crap!




Just finished and launched this crossbow website I have been working on for a couple of weeks. Check it out and let me know what you think!

Of course, huge props go out to my follow marketing geniuses here at BowTech: Gene, Margaret, Carol and Katherine. Couldn’t have done it without y’all.

Stryker 2

What I learned from TV and Movies

“We live in a world where “diversity” means not-conservative, where “multi-cultural” means not-Western European, where “tolerance” means intolerance towards those judged intolerant, and where “racism” can mean just about anything including the innocuous “you people.”

quote source

Am Stupid


If you have ever seen the real David Blaine – this video is perfect. However – It has a few F-bombs in it so I am not going to embed it directly into my site. However, if you are not offended by a couple blue words you can click the image below and view the video on Youtube.


“…you could buy that scarf…”