December 11, 2006

Front Groups

I received a comment from Anonymous about my previous post, PETA Kills Animals!, stating that "the Center for Consumer Freedom is a front organization...(with) almost zero credibility".

I do not dispute this. Everyone has an agenda and CCF definitely has one. The following quote is from their "About Us" section:

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices."

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers."
Clearly, reading through their website, CCF is biased against animal-rights organizations, particularly those that try to force their own choices on the rest of the world through propaganda, lobbying, and sometimes through violence.

I am also biased against those same organizations, so perhaps I'm a little more willing to use information from CCF's website. I'm biased against an organization whose stated objective is to end all pet ownership and that supports, and lobbies for, legislation that automatically kills dogs because of the way they look.

That said, having been dealing with "pit bull" mania for years, I know how easy it is for anyone to twist facts and figures to suit their particular purpose and CCF might be no different in that regard.

Perhaps the most important point to remember, regardless of the source on the Internet, is that the documents and statistics shown on the website are from actual documents provided by PETA themselves to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the years 1998 through 2004.

Take away any hyperbole and propaganda from either side. Ignore, for the moment, the bias that may or may not be spread throughout the CCF website. Look only at the documents provided by PETA themselves. Those documents speak loudly enough.

-- END --


Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that using the CCF as your source is about as reliable as using Michael Bryant as a source for dog bite information. They both have an agenda to make the *other* side look as bad as possible and they use all sorts of questionable tactics and pseudo *facts* to that end.

I appreciate some of things PETA does, and I abhor some others. I think most groups have some good and bad aspects. When it comes to animal rights, where the law is on the side of the abusers, I'm not surprised that the passion of some members leads them down a misguided path.

Unfortunately a lot of people are so blinded by their hatred of what they *think* animal rights is all about (but it really isn't that at all) they make perfect pawns for any industry that brutalizes animals for profit but wants to sugar coat and deflect their own misdeeds by lashing out at anyone who's trying to hold them accountable. I liken it to trying to *educate* someone about pitbulls who has never owned one, who's never really interacted with one, and relies exclusively on what they hear in the popular media. It's like banging your head against a wall. People who don't understand what animal rights is about draw all sorts of bizarre and nonsensical conclusions based on a media that hates animal rights supporters as much as they hate pitbull owners.

Not everyone who is against animal cruelty is against eating meat or milk or eggs. Some of us just wish millions, no billions of animals didn't have to live every day of their short lives in misery. Some of us don't spend money in support of factory farming or any industry that enslaves innocent animals. Factory farming has only been around for a few decades. Old time farmers are disgusted. People who care about cows and pigs and chickens as much as pitbulls are equally horrified.

There aren't many saints in this world. Neither the CCF nor PETA are one of them. So I guess what I'm saying is if you wouldn't quote PETA on some issue you might want to rethink quoting CCF. That's all I was getting at.

Old Yeller said...

This sounds like a comment I had on my site awhile ago, in fact it's almost identical.

The difference between CCF and outfits like peta is that CCF uses verifiable sources for its information, makes its goals clear and avoids junk science or phoney front groups.

That's a BIG difference.

Another is that the AR freaks are on the FBI's list of internal terrorists and CCF isn't.

As for the MSM disliking AR freaks, prove it. They love their stupid publicity stunts even if nobody else does.

Ditto politicians in little hick towns (and provinces). In fact, all those mandatory s/n gangsters and breed banners are AR freaks.

The media loves 'pit bulls'. They make a lot of money because of them.

Unfortunately, 'a lot of people are blinded' by propaganda because they would rather whine than use their heads.

Anonymous said...

CCF was created primarily to ridicule PETA and any other group or individual that might interfere with the profits made by the food industry. That is how they came to be. Okay CCF does also challenge other initiatives unrelated to animal welfare and animal rights, but it is always with the goal of undermining any threat to the food industry’s profits no matter how justified those camplaints may be. Their tactics are so unmistakably biased, it's difficult to take them seriously. As a funded front organization, we should assume any CCF position statements come directly from food industry corporations and their representatives, rather than the consumers the CCF claims to represent.

If the CCF is funded by the food industry, and made up almost exclusively of food industry representatives, why didn't they call themselves something with food industry in the name? They didn't because their plan was always to mislead. They called themselves the "Center for Consumer Freedom" because they want the public to think they're a consumer advocacy group when they're actually wholly funded by the food industry and mandated to parrot food industry representatives. Consumers don't dictate CCF positions. The food industry does. CCF merely tries to garner public support for the food industry position on any given subject.

Aside from CCF's adamant support for animal keeping practices known to be abusive it’s obvious they aren’t as interested in “consumer freedom” as they are in providing a public forum to contradict anything that could reduce the food industry’s profits. If people can’t see something as obvious as that then there’s probably no hope for them. It really is like using Michael Bryant as your source on dog bites.

I don’t use PETA as a source on any subject either. But at least PETA represents members directly, not through some front group. And those individual citizens voluntarily join PETA by virtue of their convictions not to make a profit and promote their industry. (Does PETA use some of the money voluntarily donted to it for uses not specified in their mission statement? I think so, but that's a different topic.)

I understand that people who don't know much about animal rights fear it the same way people who don't know much about dogs often fear pitbulls. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is their hypocrisy. The kindest, gentlest people most committed to ending the suffering of the very dogs people claim to love are slandered and denegrated because of ignorant loudmouths who don't really know what they're talking about. They read some web site and think they know it all. PETA does not equal all things animal rights and animal rights does not equal PETA. Not all animal rights supporters are "freaks" anymore than all pitbull owners are criminals or all bloggers are losers - although many certainly are. Equating animal rights principles with an organziation like PETA is like saying all Christians are Amish. The Amish are an extreme sect of Christianity but they in no way represent all those who espouse Christian ideals. PETA is just one of many animal rights groups. Most animal rights supporters don't belong to a formal animal rights group much less PETA.

Caveat said...

I'm sure Chicobandido enjoys having things explained so simplistically, just as the rest of us who have been at this for a long time do, by someone who is obviously new to the game.

There are so many errors and specious statements in the above comment that it would take too much time to address them all.

I will say this though:

Maybe 'anonymous' should consider setting up her own blog, rather than posting long-winded emotional comments on the blogs of others.

Anonymous said...

"I'm sure Chicobandido enjoys having things explained so simplistically,"

I'm sure Steve can speak for himself.

"just as the rest of us who have been at this for a long time do, by someone who is obviously new to the game."

Been at it a lot longer than you. To no one's surprise, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"There are so many errors and specious statements in the above comment that it would take too much time to address them all."

Oh yeah? Name one.
If anything Old Yeller's comment was so rife with inaccuracies I started to correct them all but it made my comment 3 times the length. And besides I didn't want to sink to the level of giving credence to such silly and argumentative claims.

I will say this though

Everything Old Yeller writes is (according to her anyway) apparently true and completely 100% accurate, and anyone who points out her errors is spuriously labeled "new to the game" or "specious" or "long-winded" or "emotional".

Very childish.

"Maybe 'anonymous' should consider setting up her own blog, rather than posting long-winded emotional comments on the blogs of others.

People who have online journals (web logs or "blogs" as it were) and allow comments but then whine about the comments they get or better yet something as completely irrelevant as the length of those comments have such serious mental or social problems they really can't be considered credible. Either allow comments and accept what you get or don't allow comments at all. It's not brain surgery. But it does require some maturity.

Nonetheless the total sum of my comments could never compare with sheer volume of your long-winded and boring posts AND COMMENTS.

Joan Sinden said...

I love chicobandido

I love anonymous (above)

I don't love the Centre for Consumer Freedom

I don't love PETA

I have a blog, but I don't think I'm a loser, or specious

I am however, sometimes quite long winded. Of which I can be about the CCF and PETA - but of which I won't be here for fear that Selma will pick on me.

The opinions expressed on this page and on this website are those of the author and are not necessarily the opinions of any organization for which the author may work or volunteer.
Permission to duplicate, forward, or crosspost text from this page is granted only if the duplicated, forwarded, or crossposted text credits this blog and includes a link to the original article (the URL at the bottom of each article).
© Copyright 2007 Steve Barker