by MPD
Categories: Fashion
Tags: .

franklinAnd another one bites the dust…

Earlier last week Ecorazzi brought you word that the Hollywood Stars of both Sharon Stone and the Olsen Twins were defaced with the word fur-hag, thanks to their cruel fashion sense. Well now you can add Aretha Franklin’s star to the fur-hag list as well. 

The soul singer’s star has also been tagged with the word “fur-hag” thanks to an anonymous anti-fur protestor.

Last time this happened we raised the question: is defacing property going too far? If you didn’t chime in then, speak your mind now and tell us what you think about all this paint-throwing hoopla! Effective? Or not so much?

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Maybe defacing property isn’t going too far, but the defacers in this case have chosen the wrong cause.

    I’d rather they defaced Schwarzenegger’s star for popularizing the Hummer, or John Travolta’s for constantly flying a private jet from coast to coast (and being a spokesperson for a dangerous cult). Those are crimes against the environment, crimes that deplete humanity’s chances of living in comfort for another century. Wearing a fur garment is not such an offence.

  • Karen

    A significant percentage of the hundreds of millions of animals killed every year for the fur trade are skinned while alive and conscious.

    In light of this I don’t have a problem with this, as you put it, “paint throwing hoopla”.

  • Kathryn

    Works for me! They earn the fur hag title so let it be known.

  • http://www.easyvegan.info kelly g.

    crimes that deplete humanity’s chances of living in comfort for another century.

    Anthropocentric much?

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Aw, Kelly, you learned a word. How cute.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Now, Kelly, perhaps you should consider that what kills us is likely gonna kill nearly every other species as well.

    Do I really have to point that out to you?

  • Pingback: GossipUp » Blog Archive » Fur-Loving Aretha Franklin’s Hollywood Star Defaced // Archives …

  • http://pompousvegan.blogspot.com Misty Snatchwrath

    Run-DMS –

    Fur is a “natural fiber” when it is on an animal’s back. Once it has been peeled off, it must be “tanned” in order to stop it from biodegrading. This completely unnatural process uses caustic chemicals including formaldehyde and chromium. These are serious environmental contaminants, and the fur industry is very aware of it. In 1991, the US Environmental Protection Agency fined two fur processing plants approximately $1.6 million as a result of the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that they “found total non-compliance with hazardous waste regulations”. The EPA also claimed that wastes from fur processing plants “may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens.”

    Fur farms, like all factory farm operations, produce massive amounts of animal waste that is all consolidated in one small area. Animal wastes are high in phosphorous and nitrogen. When it rains this waste can wash downhill towards streams and other bodies of water. Other times it is left to soak into the soil, and sometimes contaminate the ground water. The nutrients in the waste lead to excessive algae growth which in turn depletes the oxygen in the water. This can kill more sensitive species of fish and make the water unsuitable for humans. In the Finnish town of Kaustinen, consumption of the groundwater had to be stopped, and the direction of the water current changed, because of pollution caused by fur farms.

  • steph

    well put misty.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Misty – blah blah blah.

    Your long comment doesn’t convince me at all that there aren’t far more important causes for which one might deface property.

    EVERY industry pollutes, so saying the fur industry pollutes doesn’t make it as bad as, say, jet travel or Hummers.

  • http://pompousvegan.blogspot.com Misty Snatchwrath

    I’m wondering why you find it difficult to balance more than one cause at a time. Sure, some are more important than others – and you may have some that are more important to you than fur – but that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of us care about it and think it is a brutal, foul practice. It clearly pollutes the environment and is a grotesque and outdated mode of fashion.

    I was not advocating defacing of property. You clearly stated in your first post that fur does NOT pollute the environment, and I was showing you that it does.

    Your nastiness on this subject is ridiculous and uncalled for. And for the record, Arnold Scharzenegger has gotten rid of his hummers. When he DID have hummers, however, they were hybrid. Perhaps you should do some research before trashing people unnecessarily.

  • http://www.nosferatofu.blogspot.com Eric

    That’s just immature and going to piss people off, which makes animal rights activists look like idiots (and sadly, so many of them are).

    People on the outside tend to judge the entire group by the lowest common denominator and this sets the bar pretty low.

    I am passionate about animal rights, but I try to always keep in mind the old saying, “You catch more flies with agave nectar than with vinegar”. Okay, so I modified the old saying just a bit :)

  • http://www.furisdead.com Christine

    RUN-DMS—are you kidding??? You think riding in a hummer or private jet is a greater offense than torturing animals???

    Someone doesn’t have his priorities straight. You are the epitome of these idiot meat-eating “environementalists.”

    You actually believe that standing up for the millions of innocent animals who are SKINNED ALIVE so that selfish fur hags can wear them isn’t a good cause??

    In my estimation it is WAY more to stop suffering of living, feeling beings important than to preserve a planet for our own selfish sake where we will likely continue producing fur, eating meat and generally torturing the animals for our every pleasure.

  • VeggieTart

    Like Eric, I agree that such tactics do not make anti-fur activists look good. To be fair, though, I have defaced a few poster advertisements hanging in public transit, which is a far cry from spraying paint on a sidewalk.

  • http://pompousvegan.blogspot.com Misty Snatchwrath

    Aretha scarily resembles Divine from Pink Flamingos in that dress. Not attractive.

  • Adriana

    Vandalism is ugly and not a good way for activists to express themselves. It’s better to maintain a more elevated tone.

    I still can’t understand why people aren’t mortified to be caught wearing fur. Don’t they know it makes them look like selfish idiots? The very thought of animals being tortured for the sake of something as unnecessary as a fur jacket is heartbreaking.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Christine – You’re deranged and/or misguided if you think the fur industry is all about “torturing animals.”

    Misty – Go ahead and spend your time on any issue or set of issues you like. I’m just saying we’ve got only so much time in our lives, so we must prioritize. And NOWHERE in my comments do I “clearly state” that the fur industry does not pollute. That’s nonsense

    And Misty – Governor Arnie bought Hummers long before there were hybrid vehicles. Do a little research.

    If the tone offends you, blame the twit whose only response was to throw the word “anthropocentric” around. If I offended you, I apologize.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Misty, check this out re: Arnie and Hummers
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/11/hummer.php

    And this:
    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0422-02.htm

    And there’s so much more on the Web about Schwarzenegger, the first civilian to own a Hummer.

  • http://pompousvegan.blogspot.com Misty Snatchwrath

    Run-DMS – I am aware that Arnold bought hummers before there were hybrids. That does not change the fact that toward the end of his time maintaining a hummer collection, the majority of his hummer collection consisted of hybrids. I do research. I do not, however, condone his collection of hummers, whether they were hybrid or not, so I am glad he got rid of them.

    And this is the statement to which I was referring: “Wearing a fur garment is not such an offence.” That, to me, sounds as if you are saying that fur does not damage the environment. Perhaps I was misreading the sentence.

    And in regards to what you say to Christine – the fur industry is not known for its “humane” practices. Keeping animals in cramped, filthy cages so they can be electrocuted, drowned, skinned alive, or slammed against the concrete until their skulls crack open – that sounds like torture to me.

  • http://pompousvegan.blogspot.com Misty Snatchwrath

    The specifics make it sound like a less impressive contraption, don’t they. Thank you for posting those links.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    Cheers, Misty.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    And another comment on Gov. Arnie: He seems to be of the opinion that environmentalists have to stop telling people they can’t have nice things. We can drive Hummers, the reasoning goes, so long as we use biofuels or whatever. Well, that’s ridiculous. He needs to get it through his thick skull that being wasteful with a resource is not virtuous. And driving something that consumes far more of a resource than a reasonably sized car is wasteful in the extreme. He’s no environmentalist, it seems to me.

  • http://thediscerningbrute.com The Discerning Brute

    I’ve often found that those who criticize others’ choice of advocacy rarely do any of their own. In fact, most of the animal rights activists I know are also social justice and environmental advocates. These issues are interrelated, inseparable, and rightly so.

    So, Run-DMS – I hope you’ve done something about these “greater” issues rather than simply complaining on message boards about other people’s advocacy choices.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    TDB – go read my blog if you wanna know what I’m all about. No that I take your remark as anything more or less than a cheap shot.

  • http://stimpsonwrites.blogspot.com Run-DMS

    And ad hominem attacks are just soooo smart!

  • http://thediscerningbrute.com The Discerning Brute

    Thanks! Have a great day.

  • http://www.veganjapan.net herwin

    As Ecorazzia very well reported on januari 21, miss Aretha Franklin surprisingly didn’t wear any fur at the Inauguration of Obama. Maybe because shortly before, Peta had contacted her and informed her about the animal cruelty of fur, and she might has a change of heart.

  • http://www.vegspinz.blogspot.com DJ Karma (of VegSpinz)

    People who wear fur are much like people who eat meat- and defend it. If we were to sling paint or anything else on them, how do you think they are going to perceive our cause? We are already labeled as “out there…” The best way is to present the information as intelligent, truthful, and devoid of anger. People will respond, if they’re (like us)tired of bullsh**ing in their lives. If their not, then they certainly won’t be if their attacked by a bunch of lunatics! You can lead a horse to water, but it’s ultimately THEIR choice to drink (unless you get legislation involved- but that’s another issue).

  • http://theecosista.com The EcoSista

    I don’t agree with her choosing fur, mainly because so much has to be used, but it’s ARETHA FRANKLIN. Before she brought you that church-lady hat, she brought you classics like “Respect”. How about showing some?

  • Jen Hamilton

    I’m all for it. Maybe when these stars hear about their star defaced they will realize that this is such a serious issue to some people.

  • Benice

    C’mon people be nice to each other.Including animals who enrich our lives with there presence emmensely. Sometimes measures need to be taken to draw attention to important issues. The only harm done would be to the stars ego which is far less than what innocent animals have to go to make something that is supposed to be beautiful. Where is the beauty in causing suffering to another? I hope these celebrities learn from this.

  • Sonia

    To get respect you have to give respect. Wearing thousands of dead animals on your back isn’t exactly showing respect!

    Team Discerning Brute(you are too cute btw) and Misty. Rock on!

  • misty snatchwrath

    Who gives a shit if she’s ARETHA FRANKLIN? She’s exhibiting lack of moral judgment by wearing that heinous coat (and the many others that I’ve seen her in). I will show her respect when she realizes that she’s acting selfishly and terribly by choosing those disgusting furs. I would react the same way to any celebrity wearing fur.

  • http://beveganawesome.blogspot.com Anton

    I’m a vegan and totally and completely against fur. However, I’m against vandalizing. I don’t think it’s right to vandalize and countering one person’s poor choice (fur) with another poor choice (vandalizing) is no good in my book. It just shows everyone who currently doesn’t care about fur that we’re all crazy criminals and that we shouldn’t be listened to. This is just my opinion.

  • Pingback: Aretha Franklin’s Star is Defaced by Anti-Fur Graffiti | EcoSilly

  • Pingback: Aretha Franklin’s Star is Defaced by Anti-Fur Graffiti | Gfeen.com

  • http://www.girliegirlarmy.com GirlieGirlArmy

    ARETHA FRANKLIN is not a Saint. She is a glutton and a singer, kinda like Liza or Britney. Doesn’t get my R-E-S-P-E-C-T. She’s a fur hag, through and through.

  • Pingback: Aretha Franklin’s Star is Defaced by Anti-Fur Graffiti | Go Green Park

  • Karen

    Please, that is the very least that should be done about this disgusting, fat slob of a fur hag.
    She makes me sick.

  • jeff

    At least lose enough weight so that only half a herd needs to die to cover your body.