Let me introduce you to Rick Berman in case you don't know the name. He attacks Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He tells you that smoking is good for you. He defends the "right" to cruel puppy mills, cruelty in agribusiness, and the list goes on. A downright Mr. Evil.
Rick Berman also campaigns against the major national organizations that stand between him and his cruel cohorts. He uses his millions to buy billboards against HSUS. Wonder how much use that money could be to solve the overpopulation problem.
And every word from his mouth comes right out of the mouth of Nathan Winograd. But Winograd just swears that he is not the puppet of Berman. Who stands to gain the most if Berman succeeds in his vendetta against HSUS, PeTA, and the ASPCA? Why, Winograd of course.
Here's a link that proves the relationship between Berman and Winograd. Why would Berman pimp Winograd's books when they stand for everything Berman says he is against?
In this piece on Berman's site, he uses Winograd to prove his point. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2008/05/3628-petas-pet-death-toll-grows-again/
And from that same site is the infamous interview. Once you read about Berman, you realize that this is not a man who could possibly be interested in helping animals. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2007/09/183-the-book-hsus-and-peta-dont-want-you-to-read/
Winograd's response to someone asking him about this? He's never talked or met Berman? Berman could have been a maker of crush videos and would Winograd have cared?
I've never talked to or met "Rick Berman," do not get any money or information from the "Center for Consumer Freedom," do not have a relationship with them, and do not agree with their views about animals. I have a vegan cookbook
being published in December (see All American Vegan) and guarantee that they won't be promoting it as it promotes everything they are against.
A number of years ago, I got an e-mail from someone at that organization asking if I would be willing to answer some questions about my book, Redemption. I agreed so long as they did not change my answers and if they edited them, I retained the right to veto their publication. Ironically, a few months earlier, I had received an e-mail from HSUS asking me if I would agree to an interview. I told them the same thing. I would do it but only on condition that they not change my answers and if they edited them, I have the right to veto their publication. The Center for Consumer Freedom said ok. I did the interview, they posted my answers verbatim (editing only for grammar). HSUS said no, I did not do the interview.