A few years back, I commented on how Jimmy Carter used to be the human rights president, but now he is the ex-president who never met a dictator he didn’t like. Now I think I know why liberals aren’t as interested in human rights as they used to be; they’re more interested in the rights of animals and other non-sentient beings.
You probably heard about last week’s conference at the United Nations which called for giving rights to the earth and all its living things. I’ll admit I saw this coming for a long time. Back in the 1980s, when I first heard about animal rights and people campaigning for them, I figured it would only be a matter of time before we heard about “vegetable rights,” and “mineral rights,” too. Well, that day has arrived. I suppose next we’ll hear wackos saying things like “You can’t build a vacation home on that mountain. How do you think the granite would feel, with such an ugly decoration spoiling its appearance?”
I also learned this week that animal rights groups like PETA don’t really like Kentucky. Last year, for example, the mayor of Corbin, KY proposed erecting a statue of Colonel Sanders. Corbin is home to the first KFC restaurant; go to my message from June 15, 2008 to see the pictures I took when Leive and I visited there. In response to the announcement of the statue, PETA announced it would build its own statue of the Colonel, made of chicken manure! Since I haven’t heard anything since, I’m guessing that PETA never got the chance to raise a big stink in Corbin – literally. Then last week, PETA told Eastern Kentucky University to get rid of its top-ranked fishing team, the EKU Bassmasters. Whether or not you care for the fish, that’s not going to win PETA or the environmentalists any friends here. Telling a college to dump one of its teams, well, them’s fighting words in Kentucky!
And now for the latest: what you get when you combine animal rights with political correctness. Here’s the story from The Blaze. Quote:
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars [birds] should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist. Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.
In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”. It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.
“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims. “Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”
It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals.’ “For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.
Unquote: How can you can animals “uncivilized” if they don’t know the difference between civilization and barbarism? And do they really care what you call them? Yesterday on one of the local talk shows, a caller told how he has called his dog “butthead” for years, and the dog hasn’t growled or otherwise complained about it yet.
I have felt that political correctness will be the death of our civilization someday, and now it’s not just because of the War On Terror. Is the day coming when the rocks and dandelions in my backyard have more rights than I do?