If you saw the latest “Luck,” on HBO, it’s curious how the American Humane Association logo, and the “No Animals were harmed” disclaimer still appears in the credits. Maybe none were harmed in that episode, but with the record of the show of at least 3 deaths, who can say?
The phrase “no animals harmed…” has become such a cliche that it’s unclear what it really means anymore. And now we know what it’s meant on “Luck.”
The reaction to my piece about my wife and luck at http://blog.sfgate.com/eguillermo
has been interesting.
A few took me as bragging about my wife’s work as a PETA VP.
But I was merely sharing an insider’s perspective of how real modern day activism works. It’s not just picket signs and demos. It’s practically investigative journalism. And in this case there is a symbiotic relationship between the activist and the media that most people don’t realize.
The other thing I’m amazed about is the reaction from the horse racing industry to the cancellation of “Luck.” The industry should be happy the show was cancelled. “Luck” focused on a “Sopranos” goes to Santa Anita story line that made the whole enterprise of racing look sleazy, dishonest and populated by degenerate low-lifes. I know that can make for good TV, but it doesn’t breed public trust in an industry that is dying. No one was calling for the abolition of horse racing. But wouldn’t it be nice if the game were fair and humane? As it was, “Luck” depicted the industry as just the opposite, and yet people are angry at PETA for uncovering the deaths of the horses which led to the canceling of the show. “Luck” defenders like to shrug off the horse deaths by saying accidents happen. Yeah, sure, in real races. I go back to the basic issue: Real horses shouldn’t die in fake races.
“Luck” had no real defense. Its cancellation was humane, considering the production wasn’t.
RAVI, TYLER CLEMENTI, AND THE RUTGERS CASE
If you haven’t seen my post go to www.aaldef.org/blog
It’s funny how hate crimes and cyber-bullying have all been rolled up into one blobby mess of intolerance. That’s good, but the broader definition will mean less clarity on hate crimes than ever, more and harsher punishment, and a whole lot less freedom in general.
Is that really what we want? Isn’t there a better way to demand we all show a little kindness, civility and mutual respect to each other?