Animal right’s activists plan on protesting with produce
Winter’s on its way, and it’s time to put the freeze on fur.
Tomatoes emblazoned with stickers encouraging shoppers to “throw me at a fur-wearer” have been cropping up in produce aisles. The popular plump red fruit that until now has been known mainly as a harmless ingredient in spaghetti sauce is stirring up the most controversy in its history since the “Is it a vegetable or a fruit?” flap.
Whether you call them tomatoes or to-mah-toes, these veggies are seeing red over cruelty to animals.
Emerald Columnist Amy Feth cannot remain oblivious to the fact that caring people find fur clothing sickening and sad (“Free to wear fur,” ODE Oct. 26). Ms. Feth, in this day and age, knowing what we know about how animals have their necks broken or are electrocuted, drowned or beaten for every fur coat or cuff, it takes an astonishingly heartless and greedy person to stand up in front of the city and promote this kind of animal abuse.
Fur-wearers be warned: Vigilante veggies are ready to paint the town red. If you still wear fur – despite the fact that animals are bludgeoned, electrocuted, poisoned, gassed, shot and have their necks broken just so you can look old, fat, or really cheap – you’d better be prepared to meet your ‘mater. No mink stole or raccoon wrap is safe from a pulpy projectile that’s gone to seed.
For more information, please visit PETA’s Web site FurIsDead.com.
Curtis Taylor
Eugene
 
ExxonMobil not interested in environmental awareness
In the past year, many of us have commented on the brutality of gas prices. Individual oil companies are choosing to rip off consumers and destroy the environment. One single company is at the root of many of the problems in this massive, market-dominating oil industry: ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil is one of the most profitable companies on the planet ($25 billion in ’04), so wouldn’t you hope it would return a portion of its income toward research in renewable energy? Nope. What about helping fund research on vehicle emissions and their effect on climate change? Not a chance. Even worse, the company is proved to have spent $15 million since 1998 on confusing the public as to what exactly causes global warming (otherwise known as “junk science”). With such a high net income, they wouldn’t possibly consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would they? Once again, wrong! Of the top oil companies, ExxonMobil is the only one still intensely lobbying to drill in the Refuge.
Please consider all this when filling your tank next time. A difference can be made. Exxposeexxon.com for more information.
Sean Mis
University student