PETA Jumps the Shark with “Sea Kitten” Campaign

Call it an exercise in Phutility. Hoping to capitalize on any good vibes that might exist between the animal rights organization and famed jamband Phish, PETA reportedly asked the band to change its name to “Sea Kitten” for its recent Alpine Valley shows in East Troy, Wisconsin.
The conceit was intended to bump the marine creatures up the food chain of public consciousness by likening them to more lovable animals, like cats and dogs. Senior PETA campaigner Ashley Byrne was quoted as saying, “We were hoping that if Phish would become Sea Kitten, the band’s legions of fans would start using the word Sea Kitten to describe Phish, and fewer of these sea animals would be violently used for food. Hooking a fish through the mouth and dragging it out of the water is really the same as hooking a dog through the mouth and dragging him behind your car.”
While Phish did not take the bait on PETA’s suggested name-change, the organization has apparently been lobbying other fish-centric groups since October to adopt its “Sea Kitten” moniker. While Byrne was unaware of how many such solicitations have been made, she was able to confirm that no one has adopted the “Sea Kitten” cause.
PETA faces an uphill battle, to be sure. If the notoriously conscientious Vermont foursome was unwilling to swallow the “Sea Kitten” hairball, one can only imagine how McDonald’s execs might react when asked to rename their popular “McFish Sandwich” to “McSea Kitten Sandwich”; or how Gordon’s might go about selling “Filet o’ Sea Kitten” to the masses. Perhaps fellow Vermonters and ice cream impresarios Ben and Jerry would be more sympathetic to rebranding the band’s “Phish Food” ice cream flavor to “Sea Kitten Food”. Or perhaps not.
Regardless, the new PETA initiative has prompted some to suggest that the organization re-brand itself People for the Erroneous Treatment of Actuality. No word yet on the organizations response to the proposed name-change.

The Problem with Secretary Hillary Clinton’s “Smart Power”

“At the heart of smart power are smart people. And you are those smart people.”—Hillary Rodham Clinton on first day as Secretary of State to her new colleagues at the State Department, January 22, 2009.

 

A vapid note to get things rolling, to be sure. While no reasonable person can argue against the idea of using diplomacy before force—the definition of “Smart Power” as laid out by Secretary Clinton— the notion that labeling a new approach “smart” will be self-fulfilling is a hollow swallow, indeed.

 

The central problem with our governance is not a lack of smartness but wisdom: calm, measured consideration preceding action. Washington DC, while indeed stymied by flocks of pigeon-brained functionaries and other unmentionables, is full of smart people doing not-smart things and making a general mockery of “the people’s business.”

 

One needn’t look any farther than the last administration, widely considered in the short arc of immediate judgment to be the most disastrous in our history. But is Karl Rove not smart? What about Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? Are these people lacking in intelligence or judgment?

 

Yes, smart people can fuck things up very badly. So for Secretary Clinton to to harp on a platitude like “smart power”, and to be so shameless as to extrapolate on it platitudinally, is not only absurd on its face, but worse, is reminiscent of the Bush rhetoric that the nation is so desperate to purge from its collective consciousness. Let’s hope that this statement is not indicative of the brand of candor and transparency we’ve been promised. If it is, we’re in for a long and shallow ride.

 

The only heartening thing to take from this statement about “Smart Power” is that it was not uttered by the President himself, who, in his deliberate and conciliatory responses to a tattered economy and a divided electorate, has proven himself to be possessed of that ever elusive and invaluable trait known as wisdom.