No. You're only creating things to respond to. First, the comparisons you drew -- ie. PETA dumping animal corpses in a back alley, etc. -- are examples of undermining an organization by damaging their name/reputation. Or libel. Your assumptions and assertions about what the article insinuates are dishonest or at least selective. Why don't you get indignant on behalf of citizens of Idaho? Or Florida? Why not get upset over how the TEA Party is represented? Libertarians? Or Republicans -- they seem to take the biggest shot in the end of the story. How about coming to the defense of the Idaho politicians mentioned in the story? How about defending the Drug Enforcement Agency? This story could just as easily be a bizzaro representation of the TEA Party and people who simply find things to be outraged about rather than responding to the actual political realities (you come to mind). It could just as easily be about how over-enthusiastic groups sometimes lead individuals to abandon rationality and replace it with the mob mentality. Spoofing the mob mentality in the nation seems the more likely moral of the story -- which I happen to know for a fact is the case, because the guy that wrote the story is someone I work with. When I showed him your accusations he just laughed.