"Dog punched repeatedly in popular DISNEY movie... Secret emails, documents exposed... Spielberg protected by cover-up of 'WAR HORSE' death... MORE..."
Drudge top-pages a set of headlines — including the main headline, "MOVIES, TV AWASH IN HIDDEN ANIMAL ABUSE"— aiming massive attention at a Hollywood Reporter article with a much subtler headline, "No Animals Were Harmed."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६ टिप्पण्या:
Who'da thunkit! I'm shocked, I tell ya.
I so much enjoy all those and destructive car chases, all the violent gun, knife, chainsaw, and bludgeon mayhem, and especially the real-life portrayals of rampant drug use in Hollywood productions.
I love the fist-fights on Jerry Springer, the back-biting and bullying on the reality TV shows.
But animal cruelty? It's all a hoax. Evil lies from some anti-Hollywood groups.
All the injured and killed animals were conservatives, so Hollywood can feel good about that.
What a surprise. A seemingly pious and pure-motived organization sells itself for sexual, financial and stature reasons.
So liberals in Hollywood say one thing but do the other?
Who knew?
Those limousine liberals in HW have but one god, money.
You think the American Humane Association helps to fund your local shelter and assists those nice doggies to find good homes?
Think again.
The American Humane Association does no such funding. They are a lobbying organization, plan and simple.
They have an endowment of about $180 million. They spend large amounts on staff salaries, pensions, travel and fundraising. (There are allegations they use accounting tricks to categorize much of this as program expense, but I have not looked at these allegations.) They have consistently refused requests to put disclaimers on their fund raising to show that they spend little to nothing on animal shelters or direct assistance.
They have been called PETA with a full wallet. Nice turn of phrase, though it's hard to tell where the truth lies, as there is a lot of propagandistic bombast that's hard to evaluate.
Just know that they are not in the animal shelter business.
"No Animals Were Harmed" should be replaced with "What's for dinner?".
Wasn't the Life of PI tiger mostly a CGI creation?
The 'entertainment' business largely involves depiction of events well outside normal life experience.
Even simulating these activities is un-natural, often dangerous.
Human performers are induced to these un-natural acts by prospect of fortune and fame.
The non-human performers are induced.....how?
The officer of Prayer in his dark and squarecut robes goes to the pig-pen, and thus counsels the pigs, 'Why should you shrink from dying? I will for three months feed you on grain. Then for ten days I will fast, and keep vigil for three days, after which I will put down the mats of white grass, and lay your shoulders and rumps on the carved stand; will not this suit you?' If he had spoken from the standpoint of the pigs, he would have said, 'The better plan will be to feed us with our bran and chaff, and leave us in our pen.' When consulting for himself, he preferred to enjoy, while he lived, his carriage and cap of office, and after death to be borne to the grave on the ornamented carriage, with the canopy over his coffin. Consulting for the pigs, he did not think of these things, but for himself he would have chosen them. Why did he think so differently (for himself and) for the pigs? - Chuang Tzu
The "much subtler headline" is actually, "Animals Were Harmed." The "No" is made to appear blotted out with blood. So, I'm not sure I'd use the word subtle anywhere near this piece.
You can see the title of the piece (Animals Were Harmed) in your browser's title bar, as well as the floating header that THR has on its page, "EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: ANIMALS WERE HARMED."
I've heard less than stellar comments about the AHA and its No Animal Was Harmed blah, blah.......
Who would want to hurt cute, furry little animals?
"Wasn't the Life of PI tiger mostly a CGI creation?"
Yeah, but the one that nearly drowned was the real one.
Tigers can't swim? Next you'll tell me that turkeys can't fly!
The vast majority of examples undercut the idea that AHA is complicit with cruelty toward animals.
That's the best top-paging at Drudge I have ever seen.
Who sits to the end of the credits to see the stupid label? And who cares? The fact is that all sorts of animals are harmed making movies or just about anything else, it's just the cute, furry ones (except rats and mice) that everyone worries about.
So if you film a mouse, heaven forbid it come to harm. Yet, if you film a snake, you feed it mice and mouse traps snap the bugger's little necks when they steal your food.
If there was a movie where the hero had to kill an Elk with a bow, I think it would be damn cool if the actor actually killed an Elk with a bow! (I hear Elk is very good eating, too.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा