From the article Now this is way beyond the line of 'in your face' uncomfortable, to downright disrespectful and offensive. I cannot beleive they would get this low. For those of you unfamiliar with the issue, Picton is thought to be responsible for up to 50 missing women around Vancouver. They are excavating his pig farm looking for DNA and other evidence of remains. It is a truly horrific crime, the magnitude of which is just starting to come to light.
Refman -- Your emotionally charged accusations against the PETA "bigwigs" virtually blanket this thread: "The people in charge of PETA have no ethics. They don't care about the cause...it is all about the paycheck to them." "Most people lose sight of the fact that the people at the head of non-profits still make a damn nice living." "It IS my place to call out people who purport to be so morally motivated and are really in it more for the high six figure salary." "It certainly seems strange to tug at the heartstrings of very principled people to give huge chunks of money so you can live in a big house in a nice neighborhood and drive a BMW 750." "But making exorbitant sums of money off of people who donate so they feel they make a difference seems distasteful to me." "What I take umbrage with is the lengths the bigwigs will go to in order to increase their bonuses." "It is my opinion that much of the money donated to non-profits today gets wasted in the form of executive bonuses. I hate it...across the board. The spectacle that the bigwigs at PETA have seen fit to make their organization makes it worse IMO." But, surprisingly, I've seen no numbers to back up these statements. Please direct us to the figures you have, so we can better understand your ire. I found a financial statement through the national Better Business Bureau's charity division here: http://www.give.org/reports/care2_dyn.asp However, according to that report, the president of PETA is only paid $29,000. And the highest-paid executive receives $65,000. Neither amount is going to put anyone into the nicest neighborhood driving a BMW 750. (which, by the way, I'm sure have leather seats so no one from PETA would drive them anyway ) If you have other, more telling, figures, please post a link.
From the PETA website... That naturally does not state how much more than $37,000 each of those 14% of the employees make. My take is that a very few of them make considerably more than that figure...others much less than that figure to arrive at the average. I am surprised that Ms. Newkirk makes as little as she does. Then again...I'm not familiar with their organizational structure. It could be that there are others higher up on the proverbial food chain (pun intended) than she is.
It's already been pointed out, but this is absurd. I see no problem with taking the position that some people forfeit the right to live, but not those who haven't even drawn their first breath of air. What seems hypocritical to me is the person who believes abortion is perfectly acceptable while ending the life of a cold-blooded murderer is morally wrong. The government's job, in my opinion, is to protect the rights of the innocent and remove the guilty from society, whether by incarceration or death (depending on the crime). You've also got to take into consideration that some of us are pro- death penalty, but also recognize the need for caution. I firmly believe a person can forfeit the right to live, but I'd sure hate to have a person's life in my hands. Sorry to keep this off-topic.
A smile is brought to my face when I realize that I make more money than the highest paid executive at PETA. There is justice in this world after all.
Why would you expect it to be any different? Do you think anyone says, "hey PETA, now that's where I can make some cash".
Is that his/her total salary from all sources or just from what is derived from PETA? Sorry if the answer may spoil your day As for the abortion, death penalty, animals and veggie rights issues: Could possibly you make distinctions among life forms based on integrated neural capabilities? Perhaps a day old collection of cells called a fetus (if that is the proper name 1 week after conception) or a carrot be differentiated from a jury (human) convicted death row inmate or a chimpanzee based on what we know of the neurological development of life and how that development is manifested into feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc.. Just a thought anyway. Personally, I admit I am not consistent with the animal rights issue. I eat meat. However, the minute someone opens shop in town offering your pick of the dog or cat for your Thankgiving dinner before you could blink one way or the other I’ll help shut them down. For now I guess I am a product of culture, habit and tradition of the matter (not logic or consistency)—but I soon as they perfect that soy filet mignon I’ll be done with meat.
But you assume that every person on Death Row is guilty. Illinois had a huge scandal over their trial methods dealing with capital punishment, and that is only the extreme. Apparently "beyond reasonable doubt" does not always depend on the amount of sufficient and credible information but could also depend on the way that person looks and the amount of money he's willing to spend for a lawyer experienced in these kinds of trials. On topic, I eat meat. I've seen the headless animals strewn across butcher shops. Just because it's a fox is no different. The picture is disturbing, but chicken, cows, and pigs are delicious. PETA should get a clue like the Christian Right and white supremacists and play some moderate "patriotic" theme. Drape the American flag and talk about good ol family values like keeping your pet instead of sending it to a pound when you don't feel like keeping him anymore...
I assume no such thing. In fact, the point you made is the precise reason I said that some of us who are pro-death penalty also recognize the need for caution. In other words, I agree with the principle of having a death penalty, but also believe that it should not be used hastily or in a cavilier manner. It can, and apparently has, been used inappropriately. The answer for some people is to throw the baby out with the bath water (i.e., mistakes have been made, therefore abolish the death penalty). In no way, however, do I want people like Timothy McVeigh or Aimal Khan Kasi to fail to receive what they deserve.
But even with the highest degree of caution, there's no way to be sure whether a person executed is innocent or not. Isn't that why capital punishment trials are as costly as it is, to make sure the guy is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There's also the question of equal representation and the percentage of ethnicities executed that's disproportionate to our population... If a person pleas to a lesser sentencing, would that mean he/she didn't deserve the punishment he should've recieved? I'm conflicted in this issue because I believe that people like McVeigh should be excecuted. But I don't believe the system we have in place is the one we should use to carry out sanctioned murder. The checks on caution were already supposed to be in place. Adding more might not change the results. Keep in mind, once convicted, the burden of proof falls upon the defense to exonerate the defendant. If you're poor and innocent, the odds have shifted against your favor, and your life.
