Vegan (Fashion) Police Alert!

While watching the inauguration with my own agenda, that of the millions of animals killed for their fur, I was shocked but very pleased to see that Aretha Franklin wasn't wearing ANY fur. Not a single tuft anywhere on her coat or hat, amazing. I once poked my head into her limo parked in Columbus Circle and explained to her why her wearing fur was cruel to animals...and offensive to me. So perhaps I should take full credit for her fashion choice today, ha! Though the coat she was wearing may have been wool. One step at a time I guess.

Michele Obama and Jill Biden didn't have a stitch of fur on either. Laura Bush wasn't wearing any fur and she looked quite sophisticated in her gray ensemble (which may have been wool). Her daughters, the Bush twins, had no fur on and were actually wearing quite sensible coats (ok, maybe I'll miss their shenanigans just a little bit).

Lynne Cheney had a big fur collar on her coat, figures. Her husband hunts (both animals and people apparently) fer christ's sake.

But the worst violation of decency goes to Spike Lee's wife, Tonya Lewis, who was wearing a big, grotesque fur. Spike's not off the hook either; he sported a fur collar and a Yankees hat with fur lining. Did they "Do the Right Thing" and have some consideration before flaunting their wealth--and bad taste--during this recession? Not by a long shot.

Permalink

• 1.

  Comment by Chariot13 [www] on January 20, 2009 2:02pm:

  Unfortunately, a reporter on CNN interviewed a woman spectator who was wearing UGG boots, a leather purse AND pants, and a fur coat. The reporter was talking about how fashionable the people in the audience were dressed. Yea, wearing 10 dead animals at a time is soooo in.
• 2.

  Comment by Canaduck on January 20, 2009 3:26pm:

  I am thrilled that Aretha opted out of wearing fur. Her hat cracks me up. It's so over-the-top that she's one of the few people who I think could manage wearing it...
• 3.

  Comment by NotBuyingIt! on January 20, 2009 3:40pm:

  I was very pleased to read Anne Sullivan's blog on today's very historic inauguration of the first black US president. Ms. Sullivan points out the amount of death on peoples backs at this event and finds that there wasn't as much as she expected. The inauguration and the frequent sight on my personal trek through NYC of fur coats rattled my mind all the way along my whereabouts today. My joy for the new president and my pain for all the tortured animals on the backs of people I passed. This was so wrenching, I found myself with an unconscious, scowling stare straight into a woman’s coat in the subway. I caught myself and thought of all the times people have told me the nasty judgmental looks they get from AR people and how they feel it does nothing but make them angry. I thought about my own thoughts after staring at this woman’s coat. And realized the true reason I couldn't help scowling-Well, I really doubt that this woman had any thoughts at all about what she was wearing-she was elderly and looked homeless or mentally ill. So I wouldn't say I was judging her on her judgment-I was upset over the pain and torture of the animals that went into making not only her coat, but millions made by the fur industry and wind up on people's backs. I am frustrated with the fact that we are humans and as such we don't care about the suffering and death of these animals as much as we care about defending our morals against the scowl of people who disapprove of fur. Who cannot sympathize with the suffering of others, even if they are not humans-Are we so selfish? How sad it is to admit this. I found myself speaking like someone might have spoken of the situation of blacks before the triumphs like the one today; hopefully these sort of triumphs will come for the animals soon.
• 4.

  Comment by stevea on January 20, 2009 4:49pm:

  why dont you animal rights activists find something productive and possitive to use your energy on or do you have any energy? (probably not lack of protein due to not aeting any meat). This is only an opinion by one person
• 5.

  Comment by alan on January 20, 2009 6:44pm:

  Stevea, before you start criticizing, you should learn something about the fur 'industry'. It makes a slaughter house look like a Sunday walk.
  
  p.s. Stevea, have you ever been in a slaughter house?
  best wishes,
  alan.
• 6.

  Comment by NotBuyingIt! on January 20, 2009 9:26pm:

  Wow stevea! Could it be my “lack of protein” in seeing not only a bunch of sorry ignorance (including misspelling) in comment #4 but...Wait a minute! No, it just looks like P&G hired yet another employee without verifying the education records again! Maybe, they should offer a free artery flossing to allow the blood flow back to the staff’s brain in order to allow them to make informed comments on blogs that have no relevancy to their personal interests. On second thought-that might delay heart disease and allow them to make their miserable existence alongside us lengthier. Yes, you guessed it-just like your piteous comment-Pointless. Oh but, I assure you that this is just another secluded opinion. ;)
• 7.

  Comment by kloveless [www] on January 21, 2009 3:31pm:

  Did anyone see Cicely Tyson?? She was covered head to toe in fur. It looked like she had on a hooded fur coat. It was hideous!
• 8.

  Comment by Veganne on January 21, 2009 9:28pm:

  Oh man, Cicely Tyson wore fur? Ugh, I missed that. I did some research online and here's an update:
  Didn't wear fur: Oprah, Beyonce (!), Sarah Silverman Jessica Alba, Demi Moore, Martha Stewart, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Magic Johnson.
  Wore fur: Jay-Z, Kate Capshaw (Who? She's Steven Spielberg's wife). P. Diddy's collar looked like baby lamb skin and Rosie Perez's coat had a fur collar.
  I'm sure I missed a bunch of others so let us know who you saw or didn't see wearing fur at the inauguration.
• 9.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on January 25, 2009 5:00pm:

  Why are you giving Tonya Lewis and Jay-Z a hard time when YOUR OWN SITE IS SERVING FUR ADS FOR GOOGLE?
  
  Thanks to AdSense, you have more fur available on your site than the entire inauguration!
  
  Here are FIVE ads I just saw served on this page on SuperVegan:
  
  - Gabriella's Fur Den
  - Detachable Fur
  - Fur Coat - Cheap Prices
  - Mink Fur Collars
  - Fur Fashion
  
  (I will post screenshots of the ads at FurIsEvil.org.)
  
  The day that SuperVegan peddles fur for Gabriella's Fur Den is a sad day.
  
  And that day is EVERY DAY, thanks to Google AdSense.
  
  At least the people you're criticizing don't take payments directly from Fur Farms the way Google does.
  
  FurIsEvil.org -- a site run by a single vegan activist -- hereby challenges SuperVegan to Ban AdSense from your Site Until AdSense Bans Fur from their Network.
  
  Are you ethical enough to do this?
  
  Or will you be hypocrites, like Treehugger and Planet Green and Grist, and keep letting Google serve fur ads on your site and claim you're not responsible because you can't control what GOOGLE pays you to put on your site?
  
  I talked to a Chinese fur farmer a few days ago. He quit the business. Said he could NEVER do it again. Said you COULD NOT PAY HIM ENOUGH to do it again. Said he gets sad just seeing a dead cat by the roadside.
  
  So, how much does Google pay you to do what HE, a former fur farmer, would not do for any amount?
  
  I'm challenging SuperVegan to TAKE ACTION and to do so RIGHT NOW.
  
  1. Turn OFF AdSense. Just remove the code.
  2. Tell Google why you did it.
  3. Tell your readership why you did it.
  
  Look at the faces of the animals FurIsEvil.org -- they are all from AdSense's clients. Most of them from fur farms in a country wihout a single animal welfare law!
  
  Now tell me if you're "SuperVegans" or just Fur-Friendly Vegans who would rather distract us with yet more feckless news about fur-wearing celebrities (which only increases their idiotic power) than actually STOP the fur business itself!
  
  Are you celebrity-watchers or activists?
  
  If you are activists, take action!
  
  Look at the baby mink in the upper right sidebar of FurIsEvil.
  
  Google profits in ad revenue from her killers.
  
  And I don't mean some random baby mink somewhere in the world. I mean THAT baby mink! The photo you see there is of an infant Mink on a Google AdSense "partner" fur farm. That baby mink is probably already dead and Google is getting paid by the men who killed or will kill her -- but not before skinning her still alive.
  
  (That skinning alive thing, unfortunately, is horrifically common. It's not a myth.)
  
  (If God hears our suffering, every winter She must hear a hellish symphony of cries and screams and whimpering from fur farm animals, who look to their own killers for help and try to flee even after they've been skinned.)
  
  You have power to help!
  
  Tell Google what the animals scream at us: "NO"! "STOP!"
  
  And TELL them in the only language they understand: Ban them until they ban fur!
  
  Turn off AdSense and post a story about it.
  
  I double-dare you!
  
  Would that baby mink's mother be happy about SuperVegan participating in the profit stream of the company making it more profitable for her children to be caged, killed and skinned?
  
  (If you need income from affiliate ads, we vegans can create our OWN affiliate ad network!)
• 10.

  Comment by Jason Das [www] on January 26, 2009 1:05am:

  dukeantifurdog, if you find unvegan ads on our site, please let us know directly via e-mail (info@supervegan.com) or the form on our contact page. Please describe the ads as best you can, including what site/URL they link to. We remove any that we're aware of, and meanwhile, we're pretty sure we're not helping any furriers' business. Our readership is vegan, and if anyone does happen to click on one of those ads before we ban it, we get a bit of money to spend on our vegan/anti-fur agenda.
  
  If you have another affiliate network you'd like us to participate in, please let us know about that as well.
  
  And if you get Google to ban ads for fur, meat, leather, products containing eggs or dairy, products that test on animals, etc. we certainly would be proud of you!
• 11.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on January 26, 2009 7:19am:

  I CANNOT believe what I'm reading.
  
  As I write this comment right now, Chinchilla and Mink Fur ads are appearing at the bottom of the page.
  
  Whether or not your readership is 100% vegan or not is NOT the point.
  
  Would you let Google drape Fur Ads all over your office? Or all over your home?
  
  Have you no emotion? Have you no ideals?
  
  I cannot believe SuperVegan is so spineless and uncreative. This is so upsetting to me.
  
  (And don't even bother with the "single-issue" excuse.) If you can use the continued exploitation of cows or chickens to justify exploitation of foxes.
  
  I'm a vegan. I do vegan education everyday in many ways, and I'm working on ANY issue I can. THis is an issue that many people feel strongly about!
  
  My Chinese vegan friends would NEVER allow fur ads to appear on their site. They'd rather NOT serve AdSense than have fur ads!
  
  As an AdSense-serving website, you could make a strong statement by refusing to partner with a service that not only FAILS to work but profits from an industry that even many CLOTHING companies have refused to be involved with!
  
  YOU ARE ADVERTISING FUR. Chinchilla! Mink!
  
  My God, what a bummber. SuperVegan, you are SuperCowards and SuperHypocrites.
• 12.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on January 26, 2009 11:20am:

  Yes, dukeantifurdog, you've totally caught us out. We have no emotion and no ideals; that's why we spend so many hours of our lives volunteering to run a vegan website.
  
  As Jason said, we block any nonvegan ads that we see. If you notice any that we've missed, send their URLs in an email to info@supervegan.com and we'll block them as well.
• 13.

  Comment by Patrick Kwan [www] on January 26, 2009 7:53pm:

  I find it hilarious that the fur companies are dumb enough to waste their money to advertise on a vegan website. Everyone should click on the fur ads. It's almost like economic sabotage, but completely legal.
• 14.

  Comment by nina on January 26, 2009 11:40pm:

  Patrick, do you not understand that when you click on a fur ad, you are giving profit to Google and encouraging the fur trade.
  My goodness, I am so shocked that Supervegan can actually argue and fritter about, resisting to take off these ads. I would have thought you would have been happy to be informed and would have look at the evidence which Jason has made notice to you.
  So Supervegan's are comfortable to receive blood money from these ads are they?
  Are your membership aware that you have a conflict of interest and encourage the suffering of animals supplying the fur trade.
  After watching a part of the PETA video I have not slept soundly since, my heart is breaking for these animals, are your??
  I am amazed that you can reply to Jason's request so quickly, yet you have not stopeed the FUR ADS YET.
  Shame on you, do the right thing.
• 15.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on January 27, 2009 12:09am:

  Nina, when you click on a fur ad, you don't pay Google; a fur company pays Google. Every cent fur companies waste advertising on a vegan website is a cent that they can't use to hurt animals.
• 16.

  Comment by nina on January 27, 2009 3:51am:

  Laura, I am quite aware I do not pay Google by clicking on the fur ad.
  However if Google are profiting from fur each time they are paid by fur traders because their ads are being clicked onto, then this will be more of an incentive allow fur advertising on Google surly?
  I do not see this is a constructive way to achieve a fur free future.
  Okay even if it does mean fur traders are paying for a number of ads which are not gaining them any profit, don't you think it would hit their pocket much more if they could not advertise so easily by using a Adsense.
  Laura are you telling me that these ads are actually been allowed on Supervegan in the belief that this is going to stop fur trading?
  Is this why Supervegan have not shut them down and complained to Google?
  I still see some fur ads even now.
  I must be missing something here, because I do not understand how this strategy can work for the good of fur animals.
• 17.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on January 27, 2009 9:26am:

  Nina, we ban every ad for fur (and anything else nonvegan) that we see. If you see any we've missed, send us their URLs and we will ban them too. In the meantime, they're not hurting anything and are simply causing nonvegan companies to waste their money on badly targeted advertising.
  
  If SuperVegan stopped using AdSense, Google would not notice or care, but SuperVegan would lose the income that pays its server fees. No one at SuperVegan profits from those ads; every last cent goes into keeping this site running.
  
  If you want to stop Google from allowing fur advertisements, the answer is to target Google and the fur companies, not to harass other vegans.
• 18.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on January 29, 2009 10:37am:

  Dear SUPERVEGAN,
  
  Would you be open to the following idea?
  
  Why not boycott AdSense for a week, and announce it on your site, as a form of protest against their fur ads?
  
  Speaking from experience, it is going to take you at least a couple weeks (if you can even do it) to prevent Google fur ads from appearing.
  
  Why not use that window of time to make a statement?
  
  In 5 months since they were first notified, Grist.org has still failed to stop fur ads from appearing on their site.
  
  (THis is why I am asking you to simply turn off AdSense until they ban it. Why not require Google to stop advertising fur?)
  
  By the way, this campaign against fur advertising on Google is not going to let VEGANS off the hook just because I'm a vegan too!
  
  Of all people, you Super Vegans ought to be able to do something out of the box on this one.
  
  Excuse my language and tone if it is direct or aggressive, but you have a real audience, You could make a difference by giving Google's fur policy-makers a message, instead of insulting Aretha Franklin by featuring Mink Coat ads over her photo - in which she is clearly not selling mink coats, but YOU are.
  
  The killing season in China (where I live) just ended. And now begins the "breeding" season. This year "scientists" are getting ready to continue the cross-breeding, continue the biological experiments to create less mobile fur-bearing animals with bigger pelts and more docile personalities.
  
  I'm vegan. And I actually believe that Veganism is about not making it easier for people to sell animals and their skins online.
  
  Nor is veganism about making it easier for vegans to sell fur, or just look the other way at a real opportunity for activism.
  
  By the way, I totally respect your volunteerism. It's great.
  
  So, if you're true volunteers, why the GreedPaste/AdSense? Why not toughen up. Really be volunteers. Take the GreedPaste off your site. Do it for free. That's what volunteers do.
  
  I know no less than 30 vegan activists in China who would never put Google AdSense on their site if even a SINGLE fur ad appeared. They've rather starve. Which they often do.
  
  Why are you giving Google so much support? Are they Vegan? Have they done ANYTHING extraordinary for nonhuman sentient beings that deserves your loyalty?
  
  Would you use the National Rifle Associations ad-service on your site if it just occasionally feature a few thousand ads for canned deer hunts over a photograph of Aretha Franklin?
• 19.

  Comment by Melissa Bastian [www] on January 29, 2009 10:22pm:

  dukeantifurdog, they ARE doing it for free, and they ARE true volunteers, not only with this website but with countless other endeavors. Not using advertising means that it would actually cost them money out of their own pockets to run the website. The SuperVegan team are normal 20- to 30-something people with normal jobs that can't necessarily support the website on their own, which is why the ads are here in the first place. Would you rather have the website not exist, and have this great resource removed from the public domain that is the internet, than have the occasional awful ad shown to people who won't be swayed by it anyway? Or hey, perhaps you'd like to personally fund the website so that the google generated ads won't be necessary?
  
  The people who run this website are absolutely the most dedicated vegans I have ever encountered, and by attacking them you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. There are much, much, MUCH more productive ways to be directing your energy and supporting your cause.
• 20.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on February 1, 2009 10:59pm:

  All my volunteer friends in China, including me, us OUR OWN MONEY to fund our sites. We always put in our own money.
  
  And they don't even have "NORMAL JOBS"! Most of them scrape to get by as it is!
  
  And we don't put Fur Ads on our sites for any reason, not even cash.
  
  Yes, I would rather SuperVegan NOT exist than feature ads for the skins of animals. 100% in the affirmative. Exactly. This would force you to rethink your definition of "vegan" -- and your ideas about activism.
  
  Google is a BIG player in fur advertising market, and you're just being silent about it.
  
  *****You've taken Aretha Franklin to task and still not a single post about Google's fur?******
  
  Yes, my faith in SuperVegan is TOTALLY shaken, and would not be at all unhappy if your site went offline.
  
  More idealistic activists are the on the way, and will fill in the gap.
  
  BURNING QUESTION: HOW MUCH DO YOU MAKE PER MONTH FROM GOOGLE ADSENSE?
  
  A typical hosting account with lots of goodies is only about 120 bucks per year.
• 21.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on February 1, 2009 11:10pm:

  And, also, OUT of respect to Aretha Franklin, would you possible remove the words "STUPID" from above her picture in your category tags?
  
  If you folks are vegans, I would never use the word "Vegan" again.
  
  Why is Aretha Franklin "stupid""? What are you putting down a person who is not wearing fur?
• 22.

  Comment by Melissa Bastian [www] on February 4, 2009 12:07am:

  Uhhh... those are the tags for the article, not for the picture that they happen to be floating over.
  
  And if you think that this site shouldn't even exist, why do you spend so much time on it? Apparently you have these utterly perfect Chinese activist friends... couldn't you be spending this time getting together with them to, say, work on getting more stringent trapping laws passed? Or starting boycotting campaigns of major chain stores that are actually selling fur? Or doing anything other than bitching about google ads that most readers didn't even notice until YOU pointed them out? Because pretty much anything else that you could do with your time right now would be more productive than this.
• 23.

  Comment by SHUT UP on February 9, 2009 10:34pm:

  SHUT UP
• 24.

  Comment by dukeantifurdog [www] on February 15, 2009 7:47am:

  Melissa,
  
  I understand what tags are.
  
  To tag content as "stupid" is an insult to the subject of the article, which is Aretha Franklin NOT wearing fur. Should it not be tagged "smart" or "inspiring" or "awesome"?
  
  And, yes, my Chinese activist friends are pretty darned near "perfect" -- I would use the word "principled" instead, however -- compared to a vegan activist site that allows fur ads to appear regularly.
  
  If you think that online advertisements for fur are a minor phenomenon, you are sadly mistaken.