Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Thursday, November 17, 2011

Peta... Oh, Peta...

*shakes head*
The title says its all: PETA slams Mario over use of a fur suit

That's Mario, as in the Nintendo Video Game franchise.

Now... I've said it before: I'm not really a fan of Peta. 

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for being against cruelty to animals, I just prefer to go about it the Temple Grandin way:

Treat the animals kindly =
= animals remain calm =
= more animals go thorugh the shoot in a given amount of time =
= more steak for me!

(And to their credit, Peta has also recognized the work that Professor Grandin has done, even if it did mean more steaks and catcher's mitts.)

But there are two reasons why this is just stupid

First of all... This particular Power Up has been part of the Mario franchise since 1988!  If this is really such a big issue, where the fuck have you BEEN for the last TWENTY-THREE YEARS?!

Second of all...

"Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur."

Well, putting aside that it's more like, "Mario is sending the message that it's OK to be a furry," for this to have any signifigance, it relies on the age-old, and continuously unproven trope that video games somehow influence our behavior. (Beyond making us video-game addicted couch potatoes, I mean.)

And seriously... suggesting that someone is going to go out and BUY A FUR COAT becuase they saw Mario turn into a flying squirrel is infinitely more absurd that suggesting that playing Doom (sorry, dating myself), Halo, Call of Duty, GTA, etc... MAKES people commit violent crimes and/or acts of violence.

Remember: Correlation =/= Causality!

What kind of game would you expect a violent, hard-core, gun-toting gangsta to enjoy playing? My Pretty Pony?

Peta: It's about priorities.  How about taking on Bullfighting in Spain? Or Cockfighting in Mexico? Or Dogfighting in Detroit? Or the Ivory trade? How about raising awareness (and money) for no-kill animal shelters? How about advocating for endagered species in ways that don't make you look like complete idiots?!

Look... I don't disagree with your cause. It is precisely  because it IS so important that you've really got to stop doing such stupid shit!  You're the leading voice for Animal Rights, after all!  WTF?!

Oh, but, uh... One thing? I do love the naked protests! PLEASE don't stop doing those! ;)


  1. The thing is, Eddie, that it's because of stunts like this that PETA will never really be taken seriously. It also just makes it look like they don't really care about the animals, they just want attention. And when they finally get the attention, they do nothing constructive. Now they say it was all a joke.
    They should just stick to the nude protests and nude celebrities in ads. That's what they do best.

  2. You got it. And it's a shame too, becuase it IS an important and worth while cause.

  3. It sucks being wrong (so I'm told -- never had the experience), but we shouldn't be angsty over liberals looking bad because they'll be made to look bad anyway. Unless things improve in the media (put another way, unless it rains beer), policy and politics can and must be graded pass/fail. Someone broadly in touch with reality = good, conservatives = bad.

    If someone is conservative, it's not because a liberal framed the message incorrectly. It's because the conservative chose not to be informed in the information age. 17th century peasants have an excuse to be wrong. We don't.

  4. Steeve, Seriously? That's certainly the attitude that gets so much done in Washington. Liberals think they are God's gift to mankind and anything they touch turns to gold. Sleepyjoe is very correct: "that it's because of stunts like this that PETA will never really be taken seriously." and "And when they finally get the attention, they do nothing constructive.". THAT sounds like any of your beloved liberal programs/ideals.

    How's the economy in the country YOU live in? In America, liberals promised to fix an economy that the conservatives broke. And, when they took control (5 years ago) ... nothing got done. Well, it got worse nationwide, but you, living in some other country, don't know that (even in the information age).

  5. William, in case you haven't heard, the political debate is over.

    Raising taxes on the rich helps the deficit without hurting the economy. That is now fact, not argument. The economy is suffering from lack of demand, and the government must create extensive demand through stimulus (much bigger than Obama's one-shot deal). That is now fact, not argument. The whole world gets health care at half the price we do. That's fact.

    If you haven't caught up to these simple facts, that's your problem. You might start by pondering why the economy is still bad despite 10 straight years of record low taxes.

    "they do nothing constructive" -- so they get a grade of fail for failing to implement simple reality. You think I wouldn't bash democratic politicians? Almost nobody in politics is in touch with reality.

  6. @Steeve - (your 1st post) - I won't argue your POINT, becuase what you're saying about the media and how the Right operates IS dead on. HOWEVER, I caution you about falling into the same bianry-thinking trap that the Right are stuck in. "[P]olicy and politics can and must be graded pass/fail. Someone broadly in touch with reality = good, conservatives = bad"? Nah, I can't buy that. They migtht lie and slader and propagandize, but we don't have to HELP THEM DO IT. If they're going to LIE, I'd still rather keep it a LIE. If they can make [us] look bad by telling the TRUTH?! Well, shame on us, then.

    @Steeve - (your 2nd post) - Well said.

    @William - *shakes head* Really? And what have the Liberals / Democrats tried to do that the Republicans haven't obstructed and whittled down to the point of ineffectiveness? BTW, you're new here, so I'll fill you in: Most of US ALSO blame Obama for the bad economy, and for so little getting done on other fronts. The problem, however, is that from DAY ONE he's been more interested in making friends with the Republicans, conceding on every single point, often before they even CHALLENGED it, failing to realize that the Republicans are most interested in his failure than in their country's success. And if you don't believe that, I'll remind you: Mitch McConnell came right out and SAID IT, STRAIGHT UP! They know that the media has their backs and that any problems that don't get fixed due to their obstruction will be blamed on Obama, rather than on their obstruction. And uh... You're living proof that this strategy is working! Just sayin'.

  7. So, in essence, what you're saying is that the democrats are completely powerless to perform ANY governmental actions without republican assistance?? Bull-Crap!! They didn't get anything done because they don't know what they're doing. How did that economic "Super Committee" work out? The real reason nothing gets done is because the politicians are spending too much time trying to please themselves and those who paid into their campaign funds. The American people come third in that "we care about" list (maybe lower). If all you're going to do is blame republicans for the failures of the democrats then nothing will ever get accomplished. Liberals generally put blame on others before accepting blame for they're own failures, so when you tell me that even President Obama is blaming the republicans for his own failures, I can believe it. But, in reality it is all bunk! All President Obama has to do is go on TV and explain that the republicans are in fact stopping his plans and if his plans sound reasonable, the American public will put pressure on the republicans. You've got to remember ... more than half of voters voted FOR President Obama, not to see him fail but to see him succeed. If you think the American public will sit around with our world crumbling around us while the republicans put a strangle-hold on good ideas then you are simply crazy. You act as though the President of the US has no power to get anything done without help from a political group that held no power.

    And what do you mean "the media has their backs"? Which media are YOU talking about? The MSM is so liberalized that they are NOT going to cover the backs of republicans when democrats are being blocked. Big city newspapers are almost all liberal. So what do you care whether a few back-wood country hicks think President Obama isn't succeeding where he promised he would. I guess he didn't have enough experience after all and should never have been elected. Maybe next election liberals will vote for someone who can get things done (as promised). And since you all are in agreement that without republican approval NOTHING will get done ... I should expect all of you to vote republican. Because one of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Since you think republicans are to blame for blocking all the good democratic plans then certainly you think that will happen again, if another democrat is elected, so that simply paints all liberals as being insane.

  8. "The MSM is so liberalized" -- sorry, everything else on the page just turned black after reading that. The conservativeness of the MSM has been obvious a hundred times over for year upon year.

    Anyone who doesn't know that has failed intellectually and morally. It reveals a conscious choice to live with eyes closed. It is your responsibility to choose to observe the obvious. We can't teach you the obvious because it's too obvious. It'd be like explaining what the color green looks like.

  9. Here's a project for you, steeve; if the color green is so obvious, I'd like to hear how you explain what color it is to a blind person. What will you use to describe green? Hmmm, not so easy, huh? Now, is everyone supposed to automatically believe what YOU say simply because YOU say it? I think many are happy making their own choices and letting the chips fall where they may. You don't like the choices someone else make? Too bad, it isn't YOUR choice being made. If it was then this place would be called the United States of Steeve.
    Of course I liked how you use a "blog site" to provide the "proof" you say is present of media bias. Can I direct you to this site to prove my point that the media is liberal biased? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Liberal_newspapers
    Now we're even, we each used a tweaked site to prove our points. What you got left? You got another blog site to prove media bias?

  10. "I'd like to hear how you explain what color it is to a blind person"

    That's the whole point. You are the blind person in this little playlet. Hence the "we can't teach you the obvious".

    Your comment about the media wasn't a red flag for me to start proving facts about the media to you. It was a red flag that you're impervious to fact in any subject.

    I was tying in to eddie's concern about liberals messaging poorly. Your comment about the media is proof to others, not to you, that ignorance in this day and age is solely the failing of the one who is ignorant, not the messenger.

  11. Well, I guess my point about liberals being stuck in illusion-land was just proven. You ignore my statement about the democrats being powerless in the government, yet take my statement about physical blindness out of context and call it a "playlet" (obviously you have NO idea what it is to be physically blind). So, democrats had no power, yet when Bush created all those tax breaks (you liberals complain about) it was the democrats that allowed them. Democrats have the power to institute tax breaks, yet are powerless to repeal them? How do democrats suddenly lose all the power they had to get things done? Pelosi claimed huge victories and made many promises when the democrats won that midterm election in 06. They've been "in power" since. When they could get NOTHING constructive done, the American people kicked their butts out. Now liberals say that the republicans have been the cause of all the woes this nation is enduring with the democrats taking NO blame and being the ONLY ones who can get our nation back on track. Well, they've had their 5 years (recently) of trying and they have FAILED (miserably). They had several years (during Bush and before) where they allowed/created regulations that made this entire situation come to fruition. Yet the only complaints from liberals are that the republicans are the ones at fault. Sorry, history can be looked up and if you ignore that history, then you are that "failed intellect living with your eyes closed" you say others are.

    BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to Eddie (thank you for allowing me on your site) and all the others who attend this site.

    Go LIONS!!

  12. "You ignore my statement about the democrats being powerless in the government"

    "they get a grade of fail for failing to implement simple reality. You think I wouldn't bash democratic politicians? Almost nobody in politics is in touch with reality."

    That ain't ignoring, buddy. See how blind you are?

    They did and do have power, they failed, and they sucked. But they failed and sucked because they weren't liberal.

  13. Woo-hoo!

    First he takes on Conchobhar, and now Steeve! Has Jlarue or Classic Liberal or Kevin Kelly chimed in yet, or do I just have to keep reading? LOL.

    Steeve? Well done, as always. There are times that I don't agree with everything you say, but this is NOT one of those times! LOL

    William... For the love of God and all that is Holy... Turn of Fox for a moment. Turn off the AM TALK Radio. I have new for you: The 'MSM' is entirely owned by CORPORATIONS. Every list bit of it. And there is nothing Liberal about CORPORATISM. (In fact, OPPOSING Corporatism is a cornerstone of Liberalism!) Even MSNBC gives a daily show to REPUBLICAN Joe Scarborough. AND Tucker Carlson, Mike Savage and Don Imus have all had their own shows as different times. Show me that on Fox. Show me the "balance." 4-1 Panels? Hannity and...? Oh yeah: IT'S JUST HIM. Where's the token Liberal with his own show? For that matter who's the "Liberal" on CNN with his own show? MSNBC has shown more balance than either of the Cable News competitors. And ABC News? Was MMFA's Misinformer of the Year, 2006! THERE. IS. NO. LIBERAL. MEDIA. It's as mythical as Medusa.

    Consider for a moment how the Liberal and Conservative Blogs (media critic sites) operate. Because I've BBEN to the WND, I've BEEN to the MRC, the Blaze, etc... They (1) Parrot RW Talking points and (2) Complain about BIAS in the "Liberal" Media. BIAS. Well... you see... BIAS depends entirely on your own point of view. If you're a RW whack job? I think you'll find that OBJECTIVE REALITY HAS A LIBERAL BIAS. But go to MMFA, FAIR, NewsCorpse, NewsHounds, etc... What you'll find is that they go BEYOND the mere accusation of BIAS and point out NUMEROUS examples of FATUAL INNACCURACY. See... the RW sites? Don't really do that. because it's as I always say:


    And you know what? THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!

    I also recommend SNOPES and SKEPDIC.COM (Numbers 2 & 3 in my Hall of Fame!) Not because they care about Liberalism, but because they care about the TRUTH and about ACCURACY. (FactCheck and Politifact are GENERALLY good too... though there IS some Conservative BIAS there as well, they're fairly ACCURATE, if you read them thoroughly.) And you NEED that. Because most of what you've said here? Is flat out INACCURRATE.

    But I shall not continue to beat the horse that Steve has already killed, butchered and sold for glue.

  14. Ah, fuck it. I'll take your last paragraph apart. I can use the exercise.

    First of all - Democrats. Big-tent party. Don't have the lock-step unity, the almost zombie-like group think and slavish devotion to party that the Republicans do. And they basically NEVER HAVE. The Republicans? Have had it for about 30 years. Since Reagan. Before that? Both parties were a mess, and both needed SOME element of the other to get anything done.
    Bush tax cuts: Yes, some DEMOCRATS supported them. That doesn't mean they WORKED. (They didn't.) Or that they were a GOOD IDEA. (They weren't.) They failed to create jobs, (matter of public record that employment declined under Bush) and only served to increase the deficit and balloon our debt, even in times of economic GROWTH. (Short, under Bush, but they DID happen.) And BTW stimulus? That thing "Liberals" love so much? DID create jobs. That employment has gone UP under Obama is also a matter of factual, historic record. (Not liberal opinion.)
    As for why they can't now repeal them? They can. But they have no will to. They're weak in exactly the way that the Republicans are strong. For two generations now the Democrats have shown to be shitty at implementing good ideas, while the Republicans have shown themselves to be good at implementing shitty ones. And yes, when they got nothing done they got their butts handed to them. Here's hoping they learn their lesson NEXT TIME, get their act together and cram a PROGRESSIVE AGENDA right up the Right's backside! See: THAT'S been there problem. When Obama should have had his boot on the neck of the Right Wing and the Conservative Movement, he instead decided he would try to play nice to the very people who came right out said that they TOP PRIORTIY was to destroy him. And they've done so at a great cost to their country that the "LIBERAL" media has largely failed to call them out on.
    Also... You seem to fail to realize that you are proving OUR POINT. We say "this policy is bad." The Democrats FAIL to repeal it... And then get kicked out! But wait a sec... What does that have to do with our arguments about the POLICY?! Bush DID hand Obama a shitty economy and a record deficit. THAT is a matter of FACT. And most of the REALLY SHITTY policies Obama has continued were BUSH policies. Now: It is ABSOLUTELY the failure of Obama and the Democrats that these SHITTY POLICIES are still in place... But that doesn't suddenly make the Liberal Policies! And what's more... if you understand how the Senate works? You'd realize that Every time even ONE Democrat has dissented on something, that was ONE MORE that the number of REPUBLICANS voted to filibuster. Well... No, I don't EVER expect all Democrats to vote in lockstep. It's basically never happened, and I think it's a bit creepy when it does. But it does with the Republicans ALL THE FREAKING TIME. And not because their RIGHT - they're still the ones who started all of this shit - but because they're BOUGHT. And in one way they're merely being the best example of honest Politicians: Once they're bought? They STAY bought!
    All you've proven - shit, all you've even ARGUED - is that the Democrats are disorganized and hard to wrangle together for a vote. Well.. . WE KNOW THAT! That's OUR frustration with them! But that doesn't excuse Republicans who have fought against every Recovery Effort that's been proposed, even as the country DROWNS in unemployment and is BEGGING for relief! The Right are ALL corporate whores, and sadly, so are many of the Democrats. But throw out all the corporatists? And you'd have ONE LIBERAL CONGRESS, my friend. So, by all means: VOTE THAT WAY!

  15. Shit, where are my manners?

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you as well!

    Go Lions, indeed. (And Pat's!)


  16. Wiliam - I hope you read this. Regarding your tendency to take things off topic? (That you asked about in the YouTube post?) Read your first post here, replying to Steeve, and show me even a single point that is relevant to the topic...

    ...Which could include PETA, Animal Rights, Free Speech, Political Marketing Stunts, or the influence of Video Games on our behavior.

    Your post had NOTHING to do with the topic being discussed. And YOU attacked StSTEEV. Hypocrite.

  17. Umm, Eddie, which part of steev's post was on-topic? Are you defending him or attacking him for his 'on-topic?' statement? Oh, wait, you're attacking me for my response which was partly on-topic. I even mentioned PETA and their similarities to liberal programs/ideals. Both are expecting more than are achievable without creating a communist state.

    Now, which part of my response did not cover either peta, free speech, political marketing stunts or video games/behavior? Personally, I thought I covered peta, free speech, political marketing stunts and video game influence on our behavior. Maybe if you want one topic discussed (more often) you should initially discuss one topic. Instead you talk about animal rights, video games, political marketing, and provide AND promote a link to: explicit nudity/homosexual actions/child pornography (do you really think all those pictures contain NO children?). Then to top it off, you print a column on the evils of a gay man molesting young boys and put the blame on a university.

    Now, that hypocrisy you mention is coming from where again? Right after you get done posting your disdain of a gay man molesting young boys you post an article where you show support for nudity, gay relationships and child pornography. Which is it .. you like children being taught that homosexual acts with children are OK or you don't like it?

  18. "Your post had NOTHING to do with the topic being discussed. And YOU attacked StSTEEV. Hypocrite."

    Quit your whining. Steeve took it off-topic and I responded. Just like YOU responded with more off-topic rants. Now you're whining because the subject is off-topic? Lordy, get over yourself.

  19. *sigh*

    I'm only reposponding to this because I need to clarify a typo. I don't know how I missed that I had typed StSteeve (which reads 'Saint Steeve') but I want to assure Steeve that it WAS in fact a typo and not some kind of inronically intended mockery. That and... I don't know how anyone could called Steeve's first comment 'off topic,' but no, it was 100% ON TOPIC. I disagree with him in this case, but it's on topic.

    And speaking of mockery, I'm not going to waste my time or your all's by replying to anything else. (But as always, please feel free to continue the discusiion without me, if you wish.)

  20. Sorry, William's D3c 2 comment got stuck in teh SPAM filter. (Looks like Classic Liberal's not the only one that this happens to!) So, I've restored it, and he asked two specific questions that I figure I woe him an answer on.

    "Umm, Eddie, which part of steev's post was on-topic?"

    Umm... ALL OF IT, in fact. The TOPIC in this case is one of Political Messaging, and if it's important that groups pick their battles, and craft thjeir message carefully. I say it is, Steeve says it isn't, at least in many cases.

    "Now, which part of my response did not cover either peta, free speech, political marketing stunts or video games/behavior?"

    William? What the hell is wrong with you? You did not deal with Animals Rights, AT ALL. You mentioned PETA by quoting someone else, and then when strait into Liberal Bashing IN GENERAL. From that point, you don't discuss PETA, unless it to say how they're 'just like Liberals - IN GENERAL.' (And not giving examples beyond general liberal bashing.) I don't see ANY free speech arguments in there, at all, and the extent of your "political massaging" argument is to absurdly suggest that Liberals must want a Communist State. And, also you DID NOT discuss Video Games affecting behavior AT ALL either. What's more, this phenomenon is not unique to this thread. I only used your comments here an example.

    Whatever. I'm so far beyond done with this thread. If you have to have the last word, then have at it.