Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Well-Meaning Leftist of the Week, or, "An Inconvenient Stain"

Featured: Animal Rights Activist who "Pelted" Lindsay Lohan's fur coat with flour bomb

Last week, Lindsay Lohan was attacked by a "flour bomb"-wielding animal rights activist in Paris, as retribution for Lohan's fur-wearing ways. See the Kodak moment here. For those of you who were wondering, a flour bomb, according to Wikipedia, consists of "flour in a fragile container, thrown at a person or object to produce an inconvenient stain." (Why is it, by the way, that Wikipedia is the only dictionary with a serious, reliable definition of "flour bomb"? Yea, definitely the second-best website ever...)

In the past, animal rights activists have also doused prominent fur-wearers with paint. Here's the punchline: in either case, the destruction of a celebrity's animal fur only means that one or several more animals will have to be killed to replace the ruined fur (unless, of course, in the unlikely event that the assault converts the celebrity into a caring defender of the natural rights of animals).

Perhaps PETA would argue that the public exposure for their cause is worth the martyrdom of a few of the innocent creatures they are sworn to protect. Interesting ethical quandary. They should make like a movie about it or something: morally ambiguous heroes are the bee's knees right now. They could even have a scene where, once the animals understand what the activists are trying to accomplish in the long run, they sacrifice their lives voluntarily--and with stoic resolve--to replace Lindsay Lohan's fur coat. Man, that would be poetry on celluloid.


  1. Personally, I don't understand why "protected" things are confiscated -- and that fits right in with these animal rights activists in that they waste the death of the animals by preventing the enjoyment of the skins, fur, leather, hooves, hides, skulls, horns, tusks . . . What good does the product do sitting in a confiscation warehouse somewhere? What good is a ruined fur coat? How can that possibly save the animals still out there alive and eating each other?

  2. TW: How can that possible save the animals still out there alive and eating each other

    That last line is the most baffling in regards to PETA's positions. Nature is full of death and destruction. Animals eat other animals for food and yet humans are the only "animals" who are forbidden to take part in the food chain.

    Lions don't care about endangered species acts and the like...

  3. Nice one Joe; I don't think you will get many PETA supports over here, but it sure would be interesting to hear from them.