Kezia - thanks for your insights - please scroll down for some comments.
Ned Barnett, APR
Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association
Barnett Marketing Communications
420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110
702-561-1167 - cell/text
> www.barnettmarcom.com - twitter @nedbarnett
05-6-16 BMC Logo
] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:16 AM
Subject: [prbytes] Re: OT - PC Run Amok
I haven't heard anyone decry "political correctness" or its ravages in more
than a decade, but more power to ya.
[Ned replies:] Thanks - I've been decrying PC for decades . I see it as far
more pervasive today than ever before, because nearly every issue seems to
spawn self-anointed "victims" who insist that their real or imagined pain
trumps other people's views. A great example was that woman who was
complaining about other people "faking" service dogs . she said this hurt
her, but could give no example. She complained about a guy who got his
"service dog" on a bus to keep it from getting wet in a sudden rainstorm -
how that harmed her was totally unclear, but she was outraged, and because
it offended her, she wanted all of society to condemn and prohibit those who
might fake it with their dog.
As you know I do PR for animal rights nonprofits and campaigns, and very
generally speaking, humans are interested in (some) nonhuman animals.
[Ned replies:] As a life-long cat lover and dog owner (though I switched
from dogs to cats about 30 years ago), I agree.
Caring about animals is hardly petty or extreme.
[Ned replies:] You're right - caring about them isn't petty. But the
stories I cited were all petty.
* People who regularly eat poultry were outraged that a game fowl was
cooked and eaten.
* People who use service dogs were outraged that others were
pretending that their dogs were service dogs (note, no dogs were hurt in the
making of this story) - and they wanted to ban faking service dogs and
punish those who dared to copy what they do .
* Then there was the Obama's obtaining a new dog .
Cats and internet video were made for each other.
[Ned replies:] I know - I'm a big fan, though I see their antics every day,
right here at home. But that wasn't anywhere near the stories I cited.
And have you seen the stats on how much money people spend on holiday gifts
for their dogs?
[Ned replies:] A fool and his money . yes, I've seen that, but again, this
is a personal choice, and it wasn't any part of one of the three PC articles
I cited. PS - my cats don't get Christmas presents, nor did my dogs (except
for a stocking filled with Purina Milk Bones .)
Yes there's a lot of "bad news" and serious news in the world, and a news
website knows that readers' tolerances and attention spans won't take a
total onslaught of...oh look, baby ducklings. Click.
[Ned replies:] Again, Kezia, that is true, but that's not the point. The
point was PC "news" about animals, not videos of cute animals.
I don't know enough about the first two stories, but people do expect
leaders to behave ethically and morally. Obama choosing a $2300 purebred dog
is not ethical or moral behavior
[Ned replies:] As you know, I have rescued several cats (probably a dozen or
more over the years) and a dog, as well.
However, I've also gotten pure-bred pets, and see nothing immoral about
that. I have only ever bought one pure-bred dog and one pure-bred cat . in
both cases, I got them because I wanted a specific breed, for reasons of my
own (one time, I'd intended to put him up for stud and make a few bucks - in
the other case, I just really wanted a Maine Coon). I do NOT see the moral
Yes, millions of animals are euthanized (exterminated, if you prefer) each
year. But my choices for pets has not created that, nor does it solve it,
even when I choose to adopt rather than buy.
when 5-6 million shelter animals are exterminated every year. That isn't an
imagined slight, it's 5-6 million lives snuffed out because there aren't
enough homes like yours for all these unwanted pets.
[Ned replies:] I understand that in the macro, but I also believe in free
choice, and don't feel that all choices must be determined by problems like
you described. You could extend that argument about adopt-vs.-buy to say
that every dollar I spend frivolously is an immoral choice because I could
have used the money to help others.
For example, in that last and very emotional scene in Schindler's List,
Oscar Schindler (being thanked by the Jews he saved) breaks down in grief
and shame over every indulgence (his overcoat, for instance) he made that
could have saved another life - yet the audience is encouraged to see him as
a hero, instead of as someone who made immoral choices with his money.
To attempt to bring this to PR, I don't think there's enough public
attention given to this tragedy, so I appreciate that the Obama dog provides
a topical hook. Maybe it will inspire people who dislike Obama to go to a
shelter or a rescue organization. Maybe some enterprising person is making a
t-shirt right now with a picture of the dog that says "Screw Obama: Adopt
[Ned replies:] I don't like Obama, but I defend his right to his decision.
What I mock (and this was part of my PC diatribe) is the idea that there is
a blood-guilt that can be bought off by making a donation to a shelter
(i.e., it's OK to buy a pure-bred if you also make a donation). It's like
carbon credits, that allow rich people to "pollute" by then planting a tree.
Utter nonsense, as is all PC . IMO, anyway.
Thanks again for your insightful comments.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
<mailto:prbytes%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ned
Barnett" <ned@...> wrote:
> Three headlines in Drudge this morning highlight the ravages of political
> correctness in the world today (all of them involving more-or-less
> domesticated animals) - and, when offset by stories of hundreds of people
> being gassed to death in Syria, NSA spying globally, bored teen-agers
> murdering people on a whim and unemployment spiking back to 8.9 percent,
> this PC stuff seems (to me) to be remarkably petty.
> One article decried, at great length, the horrors of someone killing and
> barbecuing one of the Queen's swans. Since when did the UK become
> vegetarian? Sauce for the Goose, anyone?
> Another article decried, at even greater length (and with less clarity)
> fact that some disabled people claim that "others" are faking it when they
> present Fido as a service dog. Horror of horrors, one man who found
> caught in the rain chose (will it never stop?), rather than walking his
> home in the rain, to take a bus and claim Rex was a service dog. Having
> a wet dog on occasion, I find it hard to criticize this innovation. A
> disabled advocate claims that these actions by others harm her and other
> really disabled people, but she never suggested quite how.
> Finally, the advocates for adopting shelter pooches instead of pure-bred
> dogs are up in arms because the First Family decided to get yet another
> bred mutt as a new puppy. Oh, the humanity!
> Look, I've got nothing against rescuing animals. My last dog was what I
> called a "door-step dog," (he was a stray, huddling miserably against our
> glass sliding door in a rainstorm, clearly formerly abused and scared to
> death, but also hungry for human companionship). Loved that dog for years.
> And two several of our cats have been rescued shelter cats (though one of
> them is supposedly a pure-bred, but she's also the smallest "Maine Coon"
> I've ever seen).
> To add hilarity to mockery in that last story, it was reported that the
> Obama family, upon purchasing this hyper-bred puppy, made a donation to
> animal shelter "in the name of Sunny" . I guess they were buying an
> indulgence or a carbon credit (so to speak) to offset the horrors of
> a dog that wasn't a shelter dog.
> Has the world got nothing better to do than to whine about imagined
> while trying to force others into their ideas of what politically correct
> behavior ought to be?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]