Well the Aiken the cat hater will have one less radio station playing his
music. Never upset the felines especially when they are management at a
station geared towards cats.

"Karen" <kchuplis@alltelPOP.netGOAWAY> wrote in message news:BBE05185.B45B%

<piggy-backing>

I never said he didn't say cats were Satan or that he didn't dislike cats.
I specifically referred to the comment about running over his kitten.  What
was originally posted (the PETA quip) implied that he did so intentionally
and as I recall from the interview I saw, this was not true.  From what I
remember, he was quite traumatized by the incident and that is one of the
reasons he never owned another cat.

Very different, but not everyone can see that.  Sometimes I say my cat is a
"fatso catso," but that doesn't mean I hate her and would run her over
because she's full-figured.

And not liking cats does not equal being a bad person--a weird person,
maybe, but certainly not bad.

rona

I am in NC and I cannot stand that little wussy-faced twit. Especially
now.

http://www.curlio.com/new_showarticle.php?id=5536&page=last#

2003-11-19 22:08:18  Yahoo News

PETA Blackmails Clay Aiken

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who have long ago lost
sight of "the line," have dropped to a new low. Now they are blackmailing
American Idols runner-up Clay Aiken.

"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has delayed a new ad campaign
with the slogan "Get Neutered, It Didn't Hurt Clay Aiken," while it waits to
see if Aiken will apologize for negative comments he made about cats," PETA
officials said Tuesday.

PETA vice president Dan Mathews said that Clay needs to learn to take a joke
if he wants to be famous.

So what are the oh-so-offensive comments that Clay made about cats?

"There's nothing worse to me than a house cat. When I was about sixteen, I
had a kitten and ran over it. Seeing that cat die, I actually think that its
spirit has haunted me. I wasn't afraid of cats before. But now they scare me
to death," Aiken told Rolling Stone.

PETA has also said that they will call off the advertisement if Clays posts
a message on his website urging owners to spay or neuter and give an
interview to PETA.

So basically, because Clay had a bad experience with a cat, and now doesn't
like them, he's suddenly a bad person? He's not allowed to voice his
personal preference? What, will Calvin Klein start to run derogatory
advertisements against Ricky Martin if he suddenly announces that he prefers
Hanes instead? What's next? You can't announce that you like a certain
shampoo? That's just fricking nonsense. Personally, I'm not a big Clay Aiken
fan, but I'll darn well stand up and support him should he choose to stand
against PETA for this stupid and moronic choice of theirs. Clay, and all of
his fans, should go support a worthy animal cause, such as the ASPCA, the
Humane Society, or the World Wildlife Fund. I'm sure any one of those
organizations would do wonderful things with your donations, not take time
out to bash celebrities for their personal choice.

=============================================================
http://www.triumphtheinsultcomicdog.com/

TRIUMPH ON THE PETA AD
"Recently I agreed to do an ad for PETA. Why? I'm not into animal rights.
The only animal right I want is the right to hump Ashanti's leg. Look at
your average animal lovers, like Moby and Bill Maher. Sure, Bill Maher love
animals... that's because humans hate him! Moby? Nice guy, but not the best
looking man. I hear Moby had sex with a poodle once, and the poodle was
arrested for bestiality. Vegetarianism? Count me out. I ain't giving up cow,
or bird, or pig. So why the hell should you? Hell, we'd eat you if someone
dropped a slice on the floor. Oh, yes. We'll have the deep fried Moby with a
side of glazed Mary Tyler Moore, please. Dessert? I'm torn between the Pam
Anderson flambe and the flourless Alec Baldwin cake. Bottom line: animals
are a.sholes. Delicious a.sholes.

Which brings me back to this PETA ad. Why would I endorse neutering? After
all, I rip into another animal-hugging nut job, Bob Barker, on the CD. The
guy can't stop telling people to cut their pets' nuts off. So Jack Black and
I have at him: "Bob Barker got a bone to pick/gonna make a chew toy outta
your dick/these teeth are sharp and the price is right/gonna neuter your a.s
with one nut crackin' bite." There can be only one reason I would then turn
around and advocate ball chopping: free publicity. Timed right with the
release of the CD. Did I mention animals are a.sholes?

That should be the end of the story. But hold the phone - we're dealing with
PETA. Bong - cuckoo! As you see, I made a typically poopy quip in the ad:
"Get Neutered - It Didn't Hurt Clay Aiken." It actually wasn't my first
choice. I really wanted "Chop 'Em Off - They Didn't Taste That Great
Anyway." But PETA was jonesing for the Clay joke. Whatever. Just give me my
pub and go back to your spray painting.
Turns out PETA had an ax to grind with Clay. They released the ad and a
press release, quoting Clay talking trash about cats, like "Cats are Satan."
Never mind that Clay keeds. They quoted Clay saying "I ran over a kitten
when I was 16." Never mind that they left out the part where Clay said it
was an accident that haunts him to this day. (click here to read his quote)
Well played, PETA. And I thought I was the pub whore.

So here I am -- caught in the middle of crappy tunes and looney tunes...
when all I wanted was to whore myself. Of course, I have to stand with Clay,
even if they hadn't twisted his quotes. This is about a basic human and
animal right that must be preserved... the right to poop, to joke, to keed.
Look, I sing "Cats Are C***s" on the CD, but I keed. I don't hate cats. I've
even banged a few in my day. Just never let a cat give you a hand job."

Just because a person is famous does not mean he immediately becomes articulate
and well-spoken. Aiken is certainly not the first famous person who didn't
think about the impact of what he was saying before saying it.

Whoah! I am not anti-gay! I am anti-wussy-faced Queens who say hateful
things about cats! :-) There is a difference!

If the measure of a society lies in how it treats its
dependants--meaning the elderly, indigent, children and so-called
"dumb animals" we had better keep speaking out. On the whole
humanity's track record in this regard is rather sucky.

They are boneheads with pretty faces, I guess. I have no idea. I have
never seen Clay or any of them play instruments. It is really
disgusting, hordes of women have descended on Raleigh tonight to CAMP
OUT overnight because he will appear here tomorrow. they call
themselves "Claymates." Barf! And some have come from as far as NJ and
FL and Colorado!! Scary.

I think he is talented but his anti-cat statements is one of the reasons
that right now his music will not see airplay on Cat Galaxy. I think the
statements he made will really hurt him.

PREPOSTEROUS PETA

http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/14/3fb4fbaf5066c?in_archive=1

Travis Willse
Rivalless wit
November 14, 2003

I still remember that cool summer day in July 1988. I was just a few
weeks
shy of my sixth birthday. My mom carted my younger brother, Tyler, and
me
to the Humane Society outlet at the south end of Hillsboro. There, I
picked
out and adopted a kitten I named "Friskie," a tabby American shorthair
that
still lives at my parents' house.
   
Travis Willse Rivalless wit  
I like Friskie, and I've grown attached to her over the last 15 years,
but
I would give her up if it meant finding a cure for malaria or AIDS.
I'd let
her go, too, if it meant finding a cure for cystinosis (which affects
only
600 people nationwide) or fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (125
people) or even a disease that afflicts only one person. Why? Because
a
human life, by virtue of human consciousness, is more valuable than
the
life of a lower animal.

But not everyone sees it that way.

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it
(sic),"
Ingrid Newkirk hysterically explained in the Sept. 1, 1989, issue of
Vogue.

Newkirk co-founded and is currently the president of People for the
Ethical
Treatment of Animals. And the absurdity of her comment is lamentably
representative of the group's largely fanatical philosophy and
reflects the
irrational agenda of many extreme animal rights activists. This column
will
explore less PETA's core values, though, and delve more into its
history of
grossly irresponsible, offensive rhetoric and opportunistic, radical
methods they use that often (somewhat ironically) violate both human
decency and intellectual integrity.

(A brief aside is necessary here: I accept a so-called "animal welfare
theory," wherein the use of animals for food, clothing or
experimentation
is acceptable as long as that use has a functional motive and is
reasonable. Experimenting on rhesus monkeys to find an AIDS vaccine is
wholly acceptable; senseless torture of backyard dogs is not.
Furthermore,
I condemn PETA's methods and those of many radical animal rights
activists,
as well as many of their philosophies, but I do not denounce
vegetarianism,
veganism or any of many other rational practices and ideologies
sometimes
associated with the animal welfare movement.)

Animal testing of medical procedures that benefit humans is often,
simply
put, essential.

"Most, if not all of the medical advances over the last 50 years have
depended, either directly or indirectly, on research done on animals,"
psychology Professor Emerita Barbara Gordon-Lickey explained.
"Certainly
all new methods, regardless of how they're developed, have to be
tested on
animals."

But some radical animal rights activists -- evidently unsatisfied with
merely verbalizing their displeasure with animal testing -- voice
their
ill-reasoned grievances by resorting to indefensible violence. On Oct.
26,
1986, at least one activist broke into, ransacked and defaced
Gordon-Lickey's lab ("Vandals ransack science labs, threaten to strike
again soon;" ODE; Oct. 27, 1986), inflicting $36,000 in damages.
(Ironically, the vandal destroyed $2,000 of audio tutorial materials
used
for training technicians and scientists to care for and handle lab
animals
properly.)

In a statement the Animal Liberation Front delivered to the Associated
Press about the incident, the group decried the lab's "torture
chambers"
and asserted: "This is just the beginning of our efforts to liberate
those
oppressed in research concentration camps in Oregon. We will not allow
this
slaughter to continue without resistance. You will hear again from us
soon." Just to clarify, ALF is a criminal organization that FBI
spokesman
Ross Rice said is responsible for more than 600 acts of vandalism.

Sharon Nettles, former coordinator of Eugene's PETA chapter, told the
Emerald for the 1986 story that PETA does not condone illegal actions.

However, about the break-in, Nettles gloated, "I'm glad someone did
it."

Activist Roger Troen, who was eventually convicted of the break-in, is
a
member of ALF. PETA came to Troen's undeserved rescue, paying from its
tax-exempt war chest his $27,000 of legal fees and $34,900 fine.
PETA's
connections with ALF are numerous -- its major grantees include
longtime
ALF ringleader and former Earth First! Journal Editor Rodney Coronado,
who
was sentenced in 1995 to 57 months in federal prison for the 1992
arson of
a Michigan State University laboratory. Since his release, Coronado
has
openly admitted to at least six other arsons.

PETA's annals are filled not only with granting funds to terrorists
but
with rhetoric that ranges from offensive to nonsensical.

On July 6, 2001, a shark attacked and chomped off the right arm of
then-8-year-old Jessie Arbogast on the Florida coast. In what Time
Magazine
dubbed on its cover "Summer of the Shark," mass media tapped into the
collective unconscious, talking sharks for months (lost in this
brouhaha
was the fact that shark attacks actually declined by 13 incidents from
the
year before). PETA followed suit, unveiling a promotional billboard
that
asked, "Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack? Could
it
be revenge?"

According to PETA, "The recent injuries suffered by shark attack
victims
offer us a glimpse into the terrifying experience these fish endure
when
they are hauled out of their environment only to be pitch-forked back
into
the water after their fins have been sliced off."

Maybe so, by some particularly imaginative and macabre stretch of the
mind.
But offering a bizarrely non sequitur "revenge" theory only chillingly
and
opportunistically abuses a human tragedy and unfairly takes advantage
of
the gullible, further polluting dialogue about important issues with
irrationality.

Regrettably, this blatant opportunism and deviation from reason is
more
PETA's rule and less its exception.

In summer 2000, a few months after doctors diagnosed New York City
then-mayor Rudy Guiliani with prostate cancer, PETA ran a billboard
campaign with ads showing Guiliani sporting a milk mustache. The
message?
The ad read, "Got Prostate Cancer? Drinking milk contributes to
prostate
cancer." The group dropped the campaign after Guiliani threatened to
sue
the group.

But even worse than its disregard for a single person's suffering is
its
apparent disregard for and wholesale devaluation of human life.

In its Nov. 13, 1983, issue, the Washington Post quoted Newkirk
lamenting,
"Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion
broiler
chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses" (emphasis added).

Twenty years later, PETA pushed the ideological pedal to the
rhetorical
metal, launching a "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign to promote a
"nonviolent, vegan diet." In the campaign, PETA paraded a massive
graphic
display wherein images of chickens, pigs and calves were juxtaposed
with
pictures of near-dead Holocaust victims and piles of human corpses.

"Just as the Nazis tried to 'dehumanize' Jews by forcing them to live
in
filthy, crowded conditions," read PETA's press release detailing the
campaign, "animals on today's factory farms are stripped of all that
is
enjoyable and natural to them and treated as nothing more than meat-,
egg-,
and milk-making 'machines.'"

The Holocaust, one of the worst abominations in human history
(numerically
and morally), reflects humanity's capacity for cruelty. PETA seems to
lack
the appreciation for human life or decency to see that, out of respect
for
those who survived the concentration camps -- and moreover, for those
who
did not -- comparisons to the tragedy should be restricted to, well,
legitimately comparable tragedies. Asserting that the death of a
chicken is
morally equivalent to the wholesale, grotesque slaughter of sentient,
conscious beings is an appalling affront to every Jew, Gypsy,
homosexual,
person with a disability and other Nazi-labeled "misfit" who resisted
de
facto murder in the camps for months or years.

On its frequently asked questions page, PETA's Web site quotes the
celebrated humanitarian Albert Schweitzer: "Aware of the problems and
responsibilities an expanded ethic brings with it, said we each must
'live
daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as
wisely
and mercifully as we can.'"

But, as its conduct has illustrated time and time again, PETA lacks
the
wisdom to participate in a fair and rational discussion of its
grievances,
and eschews mercy by supporting terrorists and taking unfair advantage
of
human tragedies whenever it suits its bizarre, misguided agenda.

According to nonprofit tax forms filed with the Internal Revenue
Service,
PETA spent only $6,100 of its $10.9 million budget on animal shelters
in
fiscal year 1996. It seems, then, that T