PETA's Bullshit Reaches the White House

(Quick caveat: the story's from last week, but I didn't see it posted.)

Since apparently mocking fat people for their own agenda wasn't grandiose enough, they've decided to use First Lady Michelle Obama in a new anti-fur ad.



Trouble is, they forgot that teeny little bit about getting her permission first.

Now, I could give a shit if Michelle's anti-fur or not*, but you don't go misappropriating the First Lady's image without her say-so.

*Barring, of course, the fact I wouldn't object to seeing her naked on a bearskin rug, and I'm OK with possibly being the only one in that regard.

-TM

PeTA knew what they were doing. They knew it would cause a media circus if they used the First Lady without the White House's consent. PeTA is a public relations machine. Good or bad, they know how to get attention.

fur rage has always struck me as more of a class warfare thing than an animal rights thing. i mean, how many people who refuse to wear fur eat hamburgers?

Very true, and its not very likely that Michele Obama will say 'oh actually, i do wear fur' or kick up a massive stink about it, the press will probably try and make some kind of monster out of PeTA so that people feel better about wearing fur.

No mention in the linked story of whether the other women chosen for the poster consented to having their images used or not.

I don't know enough about how consent works in these cases, other than that it should be sought before you go about misrepresenting people's beliefs. However, in the case of the First Lady, she's a public figure, whereas the other women featured can command high dollars for their endorsement of products, & I wonder if they're entitled to damages or not, or if & how PETA's status as a non-profit would affect that.

Either way, PETA, keeping it classy, like always.

This isn't the first time the first family has been "hijacked". There was a story last week about a billboard in Time's Square showing the President visiting the Great Wall of China. The manufacturer of the coat he was wearing used his image.

Not sure which is worse.

I'm not really a big fan of PETA because most of the time they go way too far to make their point.

Did they do something to Tyra Banks's neck to make her look like an alien?

No objections here!

Regarding the actual topic I don't want to get into how much I hate this group and some of the shit they pull. They're just a well oiled PR machine - bet that job pays well.

Would they need to?

Also, the same thing was done to the President last week, and not by PETA.

I will strike back at this evil PETA byeating more hamburgers and fucking more fat chicks. And i WILL wear fur!!! Actually ill just stop shaving my back, but ill do it all in the name of ANTI-PETA!! If your big and beautiful and has cheezburger....come and find me.

If PETA actually cared as much about animals as they do publicity they might not get made fun of so much.

Perhaps they're just early pioneers of doing it for the lulz?

Its also entirely possible I never really got my hands around this whole concept of the lulz, & I'm just trying to blend with the cool kids.

lawl

hmmmm.... how 'bout Oprah's signature leather collection?

Well, but, c'mon. Everyone wears leather. I'm a vegetarian and I even wear leather.

Granted, it's leather that I bought before I was a vegetarian, and I still wear it on the basis that I didn't go vomit up any meat I had in my stomach when I decided to become a vegetarian, but...

No, in all seriousness, I understand the disconnect when it comes to leather. It's easy to think of it as just another fabric, because it's so common.

i'm telling you, fur is taboo because it's associated with wealth. hamburgers aren't, and leather isn't, which is why it's socially okay to eat burgers and wear leather.

Well, if you're PETA, who do you want to piss off... a bunch of people wearing furs, or a bunch of people clad in leather?

I don't think its intentional class war, that is I don't think PETA is more offended by fur than they are by leather. I think its a conscious choice on their part that most people can afford leather than fur, & thus picking their battles.

...which is probably what you're saying, I'm just clarifying, most likely needlessly.

where's the People for the Ethical Treatment of Advertising when you really need them?

To further clarify your unnecessary clarification: You're saying they're not picking on fur because it's more elite, but because it's more elite they can rally a bigger "us" against a smaller "them" when they draw the battle lines.

Yeah, that kinda makes sense.

plus, i think it's simply easier to get people mad about fur. more bang for PETA's buck. (and one can never clarify anything i say too much.)

I like animals as much as the next dude but FUCK PETA! Biggest hypocrites ever!

Well, it's also among the most direct ways they can work hot/naked women into their ads--and everyone knows that hot/naked women sell, like, everything, right?

PETA just annoys the everliving hell out of me, all the time. There's pretty much nothing they do that doesn't annoy me.

And yes, fur is an especially easy target these days--particularly because it's not really in fashion anymore as far as I'm aware. I could be clueless on this, but how much fur as clothing is really being sold now? I really don't know, but I sure don't see a lot of it.