PETA has always had very extreme views and their actions have been counter to what they want people to see. If people who are animal friendly knew the actions PETA undertakes they would have very few donors. They cannot afford for that to happen so it is an organization that acts contrary to what they want us to know.

Some of the things this guy's screed covers seem reasonable to me, given the group's goals. If you think that drinking cow's milk is freakish and abnormal, then it makes sense to try to juxtapose it with continued human milk usage. Draw some parallels, maybe make people think a bit.

Many of the things PETA does (and, tellingly, what they don't do) seem to give the lie to their stated aims. If my goal were to reduce meat consumption, I'd be trying to partner with communities to help build gardening practices and such. Instead they invest heavily in grandstanding, which seems more aligned to jerking selfrighteously than actually effecting change.

The equivalent organisation in the UK, the RSPCA, has similar troubles. A couple of years back they tried prosecuting a 5 year old girl and her family for cruelty to a hamster for no obvious reason.

edit: I stand corrected that PETA are generally much more extreme than the RSPCA

PETA has always struck me as an organization that does more harm than good to the cause of animal welfare.