Stylish musings with a side order of apple chunks.


I'm sidin' with Mama on this one (but is that really surprising?)

Okay, I hate wearing fur. It's horrible, and it's tacky, and it's just... unnecessary. Oh yeah, and it's cruel to the poor animals who die for the soft pelts that cover those Grandma/Spoiled Socialite coats people somehow still seem to like. I just don't get it; granted, I am a vegetarian and an animal right's activist, but... I can't be the only one who feels this way.

But even I'm not into crazy PETA. I remember, when I was visiting American in D.C. for the second time, I went to the Smithsonian and was bombarded by their brainwashed minions activists. Luckily, I'm a vegetarian, so I wasn't cut up into little bits and thrown at Republicans.

And, well, PETA once again has stepped out of bounds by printing Mama 'Bama in an ad for their Fur-Free and Fabulous campaign. Well, this wouldn't seem too horrible, after all, it's not a bad thing to be fur-free and fabulous, both of which definitely describe Mama.

Except, of course, none of the First Fam are allowed to endorse special interest groups to protect the "interest of free enterprise," as Brett Dykes wrote for Yahoo! News.

"We did not consent to this," a White House spokesperson commented on the pseudo-endorsement. So PETA really shouldn't have used Mama's stylish image.

PETA countered with this statement: "We haven't asked the White House to fund or promote the campaign, as they can't do such things, but the fact is that Michelle Obama has issued a statement indicating that she doesn't wear fur, and the world should know that in PETA's eyes, that makes her pretty fabulous."

So basically, because M.B. has spoken out against fur in the past, PETA believes that they're entitled to her personage. Um. Sorry? Well, I can't deny that she's fabulous, but... just because M. "issued a statement" about her refusal to wear fure doesn't mean that PETA has a right to her face and bod and fur-free splendor. That's not the way the law works; we're not living in a society in which laws bend to the wills of special interest groups like PETA. The rule is that M.'s not allowed to endorse special interest groups, and so no matter who did or didn't consent to what and how much (or little) cash PETA's hitting the White House up for, at the moment Michelle Obama is endorsing PETA. Or at least PETA is saying she is.

Do I agree with this rule? Not really. I think every citizen should be able to endorse whoever they wish. However, right now, rules are meant to be broken rules, and they need to be followed so we don't end up swimming in anarchy. Or whatever.

They've got Carrie Underwood, Ofrah and Cray-Cray (Tyra Banks), so do they really need the extra star power of the First Lady? I doubt it. Although, PETA's getting some press out of this situation (and I'm certainly contributing, in my own way.) And no press is bad press, right? So maybe this is what they had intended all along. Stir up a little controversy, then take down the photo once the media locks in on the story like Caitie on a cup of coffee.

It's ingenious. And also really, really stupid.

But here are some more photos of our classy broad.



Images courtesy of AP and

No comments:

Post a Comment

... Have I inspired you?

No? Well... um... this is awkward, kind of.

Related Posts with Thumbnails