Good cause sabotage

I like animals. I like babies. So when I saw on the news People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was protesting Walk America, a fundraising event for the March of Dimes, I was a bit disturbed. What's the conflict here? Why can't we all get along? \nAccording to the March of Dimes, the Walk America event was intended to raise money toward preventing premature births and treating babies born premature. In particular, funds were sent to support prenatal education for low-income women and to help train doctors about the risk factors of premature births among other things. Healthy babies -- that's a worthy cause. \nPETA, on the other hand, also advocates numerous issues, many of them worthy causes as well. Its anti-fur campaign has featured stars in the buff to protest the fur business. Right on -- in this day and age, we have the technology to cover our bodies without killing and skinning some poor little creature -- so why not do so? It has also protested the cruel living conditions animals are subjected to on "factory farms." I am right with them on that too. Go PETA. And the whole anti-baby seal-clubbing position PETA takes -- I couldn't agree more. But the March of Dimes? What are they thinking? \nHere is the problem. Some of the March of Dimes funds also go to support further medical research on health issues affecting infants -- medical research using live animals. This is, of course, not something PETA likes very much. So it has attacked the March of Dimes with surprising energy. You can check it for yourself online at the cleverly-titled address of www.marchofcrimes.com. \nI support the principles PETA stands for. I know no one asked, but here is a little advice for PETA. Protesting the March of Dimes is a really, really bad idea -- a ridiculously bad idea, regardless of one's opinion about animal experimentation.\nFirst, it is totally irresponsible. The March of Dimes does a lot of things, most of them unarguably good. Supporting lab research is only part of its total mission. But instead of targeting only the allegedly negative behavior, PETA has decided to carpet bomb the charitable organization with bad publicity and protests. For non-profits that depend on the goodwill of the public, this could have disastrous results, hampering the organization's ability to provide even the most beneficial programs. As a general rule, it's not nice to picket another organization which is trying to accomplish a worthy goal. Would PETA picket a soup kitchen for putting chicken on the menu? \nSecondly, it is counterproductive. If PETA really opposes animal experimentation, it should try to protest animal experimentation instead of an organization with ties to the practice. And if PETA really wanted to make a difference quickly, it should attack the most senseless forms of experimentation. Surely, there are experiments offering very little new information for science or very little benefit for human health -- these are the practices less ethically justifiable and so more susceptible to criticism. If someone is mistreating kittens just so a cosmetics corporation can churn out a new line of lipstick, I'd want to know about it. If PETA is looking for something to protest, this would probably be a better place to start. \nFinally, it is outrageously bad marketing. Nothing makes a negative impression like people picketing a charity event attended by a bunch of moms and babies. You are alienating a lot of people who might otherwise support what you do. \nThere can be more than one good cause in this world. The last thing we want to see is one worthy idea run amok and sabotaging the work of another.