Richard Armitage Promotes SimianSmile

At least he’s smirking, but how did Armitage get stuck with the name-specific sign? And,  is  We are Ponzo a riff on Je suis Charly? 

Don’t get me wrong, Perry is a meat eating, leather loving, fur-wearing, but also animal loving, hmmm… hypocrite, I guess – and proud of it. She has always given more $$$ per annum to animal causes than people causes. She wants to free all Willys, save rhinos and tigers and monarch butterflies and stop cruelty to dogs, cats and horses ( and mules and all animal testing, if practical).

She also thinks the chimps should be supported in their old age ( though the underlying article seems wrong – suggesting that NYBC, a not for profit corporation, made millions off their research on Chimps – see, because not for profit means – well – no profit, more or less. This type of misstatement bugs me no matter which side I’m on. It also bugs me that to support their argument to Save the Chimps, the organization relies on the stress, anxiety and death some chimps endured as a result of civil war in Liberia.

It sounds a little like what some Syrians are going through now.

So Richard Armitage, what’s it to be? Chimps or Refugee/Immigrant Children? Or both or all?

RA fans are already hysterically signal boosting to  get the save the chimps petition signed and to help raise funds. Save the lemmings.

47 thoughts on “Richard Armitage Promotes SimianSmile

    • Thanks for the comment. I did read up on it, and yes, I learned that the NYBC did not own the chimps and have no legal responsibility – but some groups think they should continue to pay for “humanitarian” reasons. Odd choice of words, under the circs. NYBC points to animal rights groups who want lab animals released, but failed to provide help for these chimps, who were, in fact, released. It is heart-breaking, and also not a forever thing, if they sterilize the chimps and prevent new generations – but then, someone will complain that chimps need babies to be fulfilled and nonconsensual sterilization is “inhumane.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Agree with this and your other posts and wish RIchard and other fans would do their homework. I want the best for the chimps, obviously, and in reading up on it I don’t think NYBC is entirely blameless, but their problem stems more from bad/nonexistent live subjects policies in the 70s when they stupidly got themselves into this situation (no federally-funded research program in the US today would be allowed to be in said situation). But NYBC is neither the evil outfit the protesters make them out to be – they do a lot of good in both providing blood and in research – nor, as Perry notes, are they a wealthy institution that we should assume can afford what’s being demanded of them. I get frustrated when people make such demands when they know nothing about the realities of budgets, non-profits, or the funding of science. Sorry for the rant but this one brought me out of my usual silence!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Welcome, and thanks for the support. As a not for profit, it is likely that NYBC makes money, but they are only allowed to keep a certain amount in capital reserve. The rest has to be used for charitable purposes, under NY Law – probably funding other research. So, it isn’t as though they have no money – but they don’t have the billions the Chimp article attributed to them.

        Like

        • Understood and agree (I work at a non-profit), and even those reserves are held to eventually fund operations, not line people’s pockets. NYBC is not just a research institution but a service one and their clinical operations can’t be cheap to run.

          Like

      • I agree with you completely, and wish NYBC would be more specific about their efforts to secure longterm support for the chimps from 2005-2015. The former director is deceased so that may be impossible from that angle. I do think an orderly transition of care was important, and would love to know what animal rights orgs were contacted to assist. As you say, NP funds have to be handled in specific ways and are often designated. NYBC is the fundee in its research, not the funder, though they obviously subconned with the Liberian facility for years. The animals do deserve better treatment but “feed your chimps” is inaccurate and oversimplified.

        Like

  1. “Save the lemmings”. *rofl* And yeah, bandwagon… I actually haven’t yet checked out this cause, so thanks for the info included in your post – and in the comments. In general, I think it would be more effective if RA chose just a handful of causes he threw his weight behind, rather than becoming an activist for each and everything.

    Like

    • I agree about his causes. And look, I think it is sad about these chimps – but the story published by the funding site is uneven and misleading, and it just seems to me that in this time and place, and with his past tweets about refugees, especially children, this seems less compelling. And dammit ( how do you say that in German?) he’s promoting funding chimps in Liberia, but has yet to promote an American Charity of any kind.

      Like

      • The story of the chimps upsets me very much, and I think animal rights is a worthy cause. I don’t want to even suggest that human causes are worthier than animal rights causes – they are not. But I do think it is important to pick the right causes, and his participation in this one comes across as flawed because of the naming-and-shaming of the wrong person.
        Seeing that RA has so many fans based in the US – where he has made his home, too – it really would make sense for him to support an American charity, too. Or to whittle down his rather diversified portfolio of worthy causes to just a few globally active ones. But well, his decision… *shrugs*

        Like

    • that’s what i’ve been feeling for quite a while now when at every blink of an eye, well, almost, a new cause is proposed. Pick one, a few and stuck with them, make a long term commitment which will really make a difference and do it for something that you really really believe in…. would be my take on things. I certainly don’t intend to follow this kind of trend.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Too bad some of you aren’t half the compassionate human being RA is. He’s doesn’t need anyone’s permission to support or not support any causes he cares about. I feel sorry for anyone who think any of the causes RA supports are up for debate. He’s a big boy who knows what he’s doing and he doesn’t need mother hens to lead him around.

    Like

    • I think it’s pretty clear from the comments here and on the other post that commenters here feel terrible about the plight of the chimps. That doesn’t negate the squirrelly feeling some of us have about the circumstances of Richard Armitage’s participation in the tweet and the sign he held up, especially in light of other recent humanitarian causes he’s championed, and causes Michelle Forbes tried to attribute to him. Further, the commenters here are not debating with Richard Armitage about his causes – they’re discussing, with each other, what they think of this particular issue, and other charity-related issues. He can certainly do what he wants, and I can certainly discuss and comment on it. Forgive me if I think it short-sighted or just thoughtless that he posted a shaming message directed at a leading female medical professional – who, I might add, is credited with helping to find a cure/treatment for ovarian cancer and is not even on the NYBC board anymore, , and a man so well known for his philanthropy and public service ( he funded a foundation that provides stem cells to recipients and which has helped cure children with sickle cell anemia, his bank gave depositors who were affected by Hurrican Katrina $ 1,000 free and clear, deposited into their account, and much, much more.( Okay, he’s very rich, too) I think the mother hen analogy is more appropriately cast at those who feel they must defend RA’s every action against criticism. NYBC made its position on the Chimps clear – they’re concern is people, not animals, and therefore, the appropriate group to lobby for help are animal welfare groups. From what I read, there was something political that made the long standing arrangement where NYBC did fund the chimps, and unless we know everything about it, I don’t think we’re in a position to determine whether NYBC is completely right or completely wrong. Anyone of those groups or certainly the coalition, could afford to maintain the chimps.

      Like

      • Regardless if the NYBC’s position on these poor chimpanzees, they were responsible for exploiting them in their medical research, not the Liberian government. Liberia is a country high in poverty and has to import 90 percent of their food. How is Liberia suppose to feed these poor creatures if they already have a hard time feeding their own people? Chimpanzees are closely related to humans, don’t these creatures deserve to live, too?

        Like

      • Plus, Michael Hodin, Laurie Milcher and Howard Melstien deserve to be shamed for their roles with NYBC while these chimpanzees were abandoned to starve. MF, RA, and
        RI did a good job to let others know who were responsible.

        Like

      • For all that I feel NYBC is misrepresented by the protesters, the NYBC statements about their focus being people (ie not animals) don’t sit well with me either, and I wish they would have chosen different words. It’s something that bugs me about both sides here: people aren’t more important than animals – but neither is it the other way around.

        Like

        • Again, this is coming from an animal lover with conflicted feelings about using animals for medical research – but once the decision is made by some that it’s okay and lawful to use animals for medical research, then the question – whether people are more important than animals, has been answered in the affirmative- at least in the scenario of medical testing and research. Maybe it’s okay to use animals to help cure cancer, etc.,- but not to test mascara or hair dye. if we were having a discussion about protecting the environment and endangered species vs. convenience to humans, I might – am likely to – come up with a different answer.

          Like

      • Honestly, I do not think he is a person who can be easily manipulated, I just think that RA and MF are very close since he has agreed to support her campaign. Someone could not agree with some decisions, but in that case they should not agree with him, do somehow “blame” her.

        Like

      • Honestly, I do not think he is a person who can be easily manipulated, I just think that RA and MF are very close since he has agreed to support her campaign. Someone could not agree with some decisions, but in that case they should not agree with him, not somehow “blame” her.

        Like

        • I’m not blaming one or the other. They have a relationship (colleagues working closely together, maybe friends), and I think the dynamic of that relationship, as we’re seeing it play out on Twitter, is a factor in his decisions to speak out. Maybe he just wants to save the chimps and use his fandom to contribute to that cause, or maybe he’s just willing to let someone else use his fandom.

          Like

  3. Look, i just don’t want to get into this.. much 😉 On a more serious tone, i never participate in these kinds of initiatives unless i investigate, research and feel very deeply that i need to make a difference. The reason being not that i feel i can’t care for many things but that financially unfortunately or practically i can only make a difference in a lot fewer than i can generally care about. Ie i just have to pick my battles.
    I’ve also recently seen another article published by the same person, republished because i don’t follow that closely myself which i disagreed with for a multitude of reason. I’ve got no problem with having different opinions and i don’t believe i have to follow anything she suggests either. And i generally don’t believe in personal naming and such (these things are for courts and trials and evidence and proof of guilt, investigative journalism, etc). Maybe she is in person as determined as she is in her social media approach and then if one is not very assertive oneself face to face it’s easier to go along than refuse and therefore get into a long debate of why one doesn’t want to follow the/every suggestion. (Especially if there is a general belief that we are talking about causes which are all worthy in principle). Just my thoughts.
    I know i’d find it difficult having to get into a debate about this or that cause quite often if i had to work with a person. I’d probably wish they wouldn’t approach me with everything as i’d rather pick my own battles. I personally think it was evident which was really his own.
    Irrespective of any suggestions i’ve decided a year ago already that my approach is not this and that i simply cannot follow. Some causes are very close to my heart and i just choose to dedicate myself to those longer term and i’d rather do that privately and not through a republish button of some sort. Each person being entitled to their own choices of course 🙂
    It does make me sad when i feel quite strongly very differently about such heartfelt causes like charities and such, but each person is different and as a fan i have to live with it and do my own thing. I tend to take refuge from the uncomfortable feeling in going back to the ‘work’ 🙂
    I certainly don’t want to ‘mother’ him 😉 but he’s also not my ‘daddy’ to tell me what to do 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • don’t worry Perry it’s just a blog comment format issue, some formats have it, some don’t the likes do appear however in the general WP reading pane of comments (strange)
      🙂 Ikr on twitter, sometimes when one is in the middle of it it’s hard to see that twitter and such are not black and white opinions as they might seem, there are subtleties in there, as much in ‘not saying’ as in ‘saying’. And i’m probably old fashioned in thinking that getting involved with a cause is not twitter or facebook, etc. Though i would not deny that in many cases word of mouth is essential and very helpful, especially in political debates and situations where freedom of speech is part of the issue. But in terms of humanitarian causes, words are not what people need 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Maybe when he has to work so closely with these two, and she bangs on again about another animal cause, he has some interest/sympathy and just went along with it?

    (RA always used to raise his left eyebrow when he was amused/tickled/exasperated by something (not seen him do that for quite a while in any recent pics) but there’s a slight hint of it here, which maybe adds to the interpretation she’s more fanatical about it than maybe he is? He may have been too much of a gent to say no? And, as some others have pointed out – he hasn’t retweeted it.)

    Just wanted to add – thanks for all the research, Perry, I agree with your views on this.

    P.S. On March 28th, Rebecca Gausnell @RebeccaGausnell tweeted ‘And so begins the final 25 days in Berlin ✈️ #BerlinStation 🎥 ‘

    Like

  5. This has really bugged me more than I usually allow fandom stuff to do…. I understand at this point that since the hepatitis studies with the chimps began in the 70s, they undoubtedly wouldn’t pass muster with a review board today. Between that & the former director’s published statements in trying to recruit a permanent caretaker for the facility after their research/funding ended, I’d say they should admit their obligation. If they have encountered roadblocks with the Liberian government, they may not be open about it for fear it might come back on the chimps or their caretakers on the ground.

    What bothers me most is the demonization of people in Ms. Forbes’ approach & that of many animal rights groups. She oversimplifies the issues (#feedyourchimps – please) & thinks it’s OK to protest repeatedly at people’s homes. I believe that violates legal & personal boundaries. If it’s wrong for other groups (or pols 😛 ) to villainize or cartoonify people for the sake of a cause, it’s wrong for anyone to do it. That’s a really slippery, dangerous slope to start down. She has the legal right to say it, but I believe it does encourage violence. Justifying by saying the animals experienced violence is exactly what I’m talking about- that’s gang logic.

    Sorry for the vent…..planning to stay off Twitter today for my mental health 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s