PETA’s use of First Lady in advertisement angers White House

[V_Byl]

Source: Yahoo News

No strangers to controversy, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is up to its old tricks again. This time they've raised eyebrows by using an image of Michelle Obama in an anti-fur advertisement without her permission. The White House is not pleased, to say the least.

...

The current flap with PETA isn't the first time that Obama family members have been used without consent to promote political causes. Last August, a Washington nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting healthy school lunches came under fire for incorporating Sasha and Malia Obama into a campaign to reform the Child Nutrition Act. The ads, which featured the image of a young African American girl, read, "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?" Just like PETA, the group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Action, refused to remove the ads after the White House voiced their objections.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1047

---

Thought it was strange that this pisses off the White House, but not all the unscrupulous ads with all the no-name online universities that use Obama's image, or the debt consolidation companies, etc... Guess they don't want to upset the blue dog base.

[FarLeftFist]

1. You left out the part stating...

Michelle Obama IS anti-fur, but her image can not be used to endorse special interest groups such as PETA.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPedigrees]

3. PETA can afford an expensive lawsuit

with all the money they've suckered from well meaning but misinformed supporters. But I'd rather see them spend the bucks on a court ordered reparation to the first lady than spend it on a legal defense fund for a fire-bombing terrorist, as they've done in the past.

[nyc 4 Biden]

5. Looks like I am one of those...

animal rights nutcases and I've been suckered.

Hey, I'm not misinformed. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with the treatment of animals in today's agribusiness. Keep up the good work!

:sarcasm:

[tonysam]

9. Yeah, you are. PETA doesn't care about how domesticated animals

are treated. They don't think they should exist--period.

Hate to burst your bubble, but it is true.

[nyc 4 Biden]

17. I never said anything about domesticated animals.

Did I?

I mentioned animals exploited(tortured) by agribusiness.

To use your words, don't be a sucker.

[Ignis]

20. No, it's not true. It's a falsehood that you keep spreading.

Provide support for your claim or retract it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. Me too

Golly Gee. damntexdem, SPedigrees and tonysam must be right.
Animals never suffer in cramped cages all their lives, or are raised and skinned, sometimes still living, simply for status symbol coats.

That's just that terr'ist muslim socialist PETA telling lies! Oh I forgot also "millionaires".
In fact that's why all those member join, to make millions. They probably do things that put Vick to shame when no ones looking. I mean come on, NO ONE could actually be CONCERNED for the welfare of defenseless animals. They're our God appointed slaves to torture as we see fit.




:eyes:

[tonysam]

11. PETA doesn't think any domesticated animals should exist.

Why don't you tell the truth about "your" organization instead of peddling its lies?

[LiberalLovinLug]

15. PETA's postion on pets

“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

First off, I am not a PETA member. But its ludicrous to think that there is no need for anyone or any group to stand up for abuse of animals.

As you see, they do not "think any domesticated animals should exist". Their request is that you adopt an animal from a shelter, simply because there is an over population of unwanted pets already. Why buy one from a puppy mill when you can 'recycle' one already born?

Also you use this as a red herring. I'm sure that 95% of PETA members have an animal companion. Most are most likely rescued from shelters. Thats not the main issue. Its the ongoing systematic unnecessary torture of animals for the pleasure of those that can afford the products they produce.

And here's another red herring you probably had ready to go: That people who believe in the ethical treatment of animals don't care about the ethical treatment of humans. In other words, why save an abused dog when you could use that money to support a child in Africa. To which I would say, each to his own. Some choose the environmental causes. If everybody supported the same one cause, there would be nothing left for anything else. Its a stupid argument.

You may not give a rats ass about the welfare of our fellow animals on the planet that have no voice, but its astounding that you have the gall to criticize those that do.

[Ignis]

21. Proof? (nt)

[Matariki]

37. Who needs proof? *Everyone* KNOWS they are attention-whores & hypocrites.

Prove that they're not.

[Ignis]

40. Whee! You're a live one.

I'll prove a negative :crazy: ...right after you provide proof for Tonysam's statement below:

PETA doesn't think any domesticated animals should exist.

[Matariki]

51. It's all you deserve in this thread Ignis.

[Ignis]

54. Oh the shame! Oh the drama! Oh the dearth of facts!

So...I take it you can't prove your claim, right? :dunce:

Why else would you resort to personal attacks? :shrug:

[Marxist Hypocrite]

58. PETArded

"Hey, I'm not misinformed. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with the treatment of animals in today's agribusiness. Keep up the good work!"



As opposed to PETA's own treatment of animals, correct? Seeing as how it's now an official matter of court record that the group kills and abuses FAR more animals than it has EVER saved.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


OH, but I forget. We're supposed to just bury our hands in the sand and scream "RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!" any time PETA's actions are exposed.

[tonysam]

8. PETA is a wackadoodle group

that if anybody knew their TRUE motives, they wouldn't get a dime.

At least of anybody who isn't a natural sucker.

[marshall]

13. I don't think there will be a lawsuit

The President's and First Lady's images are public domain, aren't they?

I'm sure the Bushes would have sued "That's My Bush" producers if they'd beeen able to.

[RedCloud]

4. But if the NRA used them, they would shut up about it.

How quick they are to bite left, but sniff poop right!

[PeakFun]

6. whatever happened to black pride?

I would think Michelle would be proud to be associated with the Fur-less crowd.

It would have been more controversial for her to have supported the campaign outright. This shows her support without
opening her up to criticism from the wack-Os

[bluestateguy]

7. PETA: the ultimate crybaby group

nt

[saracat]

12. Well ,Michelle did have a mink coat that was missplaced at a Chicago

2006 birthday party for Jesse Jackson and she was really upset about it. So she does wear fur!
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=6

[Ignis]

18. She should fire her deputy press secretary, then.

"Mrs. Obama does not wear fur," Mrs. O's deputy press secretary Semonti Mustaphi confirmed.

-- WT: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/green-and-glover-undercover-86626247/

[saracat]

23. Perhaps not now.

[Ignis]

28. Or perhaps not ever. Why don't you write and ask? (nt)

[saracat]

33. Because it isn't an big issue to me? As long as she doesn't buy fur now, It shouldn't matter if she

did previously. She hs never stated that she has NEVER worn fur. But if pictures surfaced of the mink, the PETA ad could look hypocrtical. I don't buy fur but I have several Heirloom furs that were left to me and yes, I wear them. Why not? it isn't as though I can bring the animals back or I cpromote the industry by purchasing fur.

[Ignis]

38. I agree with this statement:

As long as she doesn't buy fur now, It shouldn't matter if she did previously.

I think your earlier comments implied that it did, in fact, matter to you. But if I incorrectly inferred that, I apologize.

Either way, it's nice to reach concurrence that buying new furs is a nasty practice. :)

As an aside, if you're honestly asking what you can do with old fur coats, you could always donate them to PETA. :D They give them away to the homeless.

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=12269

Or, as you say, just wear them until they're done. :shrug:

[seeinfweggos]

29. michelle obama wears fur?

then i guess those peta folks are some real dumbasses then, huh?

[Ignis]

32. Not only did you reply to the wrong post...

But you're wrong.

Well, either that or you're accusing Mrs. Obama's deputy press secretary of lying. Which is it?

[seeinfweggos]

34. i'm just saying that IF peta picked a fur-wearer for their ad they sure look stupid(er)

[Ignis]

39. Oh, they've done that several times with "famous" vegetarians.

Also, some of their star "no fur" celebrities have been caught wearing fur. :shrug:

But to be fair, PETA also does important investigative work into animal abuse.

[UpInArms]

22. was it really her coat? that article uses the word "reportedly"

and it was a hatchet piece on the Obamas -

“Hmmm,” Michael Sneed, the Sun-Times columnist, reported in 2006. “Sneed hears rumbles a mink coat reportedly belonging to Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama, may have gone missing following the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s birthday bash at the South Shore Cultural Center.”

wow - I'm not a cheerleader, but this is a DU world that I'm quite amazed by - let's see if we can destroy everything with a thousand papercuts?

:shrug:

(edited for error in wording)

[Ignis]

27. Well, you know, "some people say" ...

Yeah, I think I'll take the word of Mrs. Obama's deputy press secretary over a juicy bit of third-hand gossip from a Sun-Times "columnist"--even if he has a delightfully Dickensian name such as Sneed.

But that certainly was an...interesting story. I found the implication that you can't leave nice things unattended around Black folks to be particularly egregious.

:grr:

[saracat]

30. Please this was not the only report of Michelle and her mink. Many papers had this and didn't use

"reportedly" except for the fact it was "reportedly misplaced". Michelle was well known for her mink in Chicago.It is only recently she has come out against fur. It just might have been embarrassing to have the PETA add if there are pix of her in mink, though she no longer wears it. And I agree, they shouldn't have uzed her image without permission.

[UpInArms]

45. okay - then cite those articles

you, saracat, have been a reputable poster and this is just a "one issue" kind of thing

I am just really tired of all the enuendos and stone-casting and the edges melting away that has been occurring at DU and I no longer want to have discussions about things that don't matter.

I hope that all in your world are well and happy -

I wish the wars would stop - and it really is easy - just stop

one side cannot fight unless someone else takes up the sword to fight on

now, I ramble

so ... I just say

good night and good dreams and maybe tomorrow it will be better

but... only if... we all decide that we can do better and so .. do better

[groundloop]

14. Whether you like or dislike PETA, it's WRONG to use Michele Obama's image without permission

[Ignis]

19. Why? (nt)

[Matariki]

24. Think about it. It's actually quite obvious.

[Ignis]

25. Because? (nt)

[Matariki]

36. Obvious. Using a person's image implies endorsement. Endorsement requires permission.

What if McDonald's or Walmart decided to use Michelle Obama's image to promote their products?

Seriously. I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you really are unable to think this through for yourself.

[Ignis]

42. Mmm, tasty insults. I knew they were coming.

How, precisely, is PETA using Mrs. Obama's image in a "Don't Wear Fur!" campaign* ethically equivalent to McDonald's using Mrs. Obama's image to sell cheeseburgers?

* = Note that Mrs. Obama does not wear fur, and her deputy press secretary has stated so on the record with the Washington Times.

[Matariki]

50. I'll assume you were expecting insults because you knew you were needling people

by being deliberatly obtuse.

peta USING Ms Obama's image without her permission to somehow imply an endorsement is the same as any business or group using a person's image without permission to imply endorsement. Whether it's McDonald's, the ACLU or peta.

[Ignis]

55. There's never any excuse for personal attacks.

And your argument for moral equivalency is weak and lacks support. :hi:

[Xenotime]

16. She looks great. Goes well with the President's ad.

[seeinfweggos]

26. peta are a buch of nuts

[Ignis]

31. Interesting.

Is it the PETA workers who are insane? All of them? Are the managers more insane?

What about the volunteers? Are they all certifiable? Every single one?

Anyone who's ever donated a single penny to PETA--also clinically insane?

I'm fascinated by your diagnosis-via-TCP/IP, and I would like to learn more. :hi:

[seeinfweggos]

35. the answers to your questions are: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no

got it?

[Ignis]

41. I suppose consistent bigotry is better than the wishy-washy kind.

But is that really a prize worth claiming? :shrug:

[seeinfweggos]

43. so thinking peta is a ridiculous organization makes one a bigot?

thanks for making my point.

[Ignis]

44. The organization, or the people working therein?

There is, believe it or not, a difference.

Also, I'm not a PETA member, but nice drive-by sliming. :hi:

[seeinfweggos]

46. an organization is made up of the people working theirin

and their doners and perhaps others. but i do not see your distinction between the two - other than one "people working.." is a subgroup of the organization.

i assume you are distinguishing between volunteers stuffing envelopes and whatever sort of board runs the thing?

[seeinfweggos]

47. ignis let me clarify

i do not believe that people dedicated to fighting animal cruelty or abuse are insane. i oppose commercial fur, animal testing for non-medical purposes, like cosmetic safety, and i oppose it for medical reasons if their is a viable alternative. i eat meat, but i don't eat veal. i think people who fight pit bulls are sadists who belong in jail.

but i do think peta is nuts. and anyone supporting them who aren't nuts are misinformed.

[Ignis]

48. Thank you for clarifying.

PETA (especially the ad/PR/marketing groups) can certainly pull some stupid stunts.

But that's not all PETA does. PETA does very important investigative work on animal cruelty (in labs, circuses, etc.) that otherwise would never have received mainstream media attention. I'm not willing to condemn the entire organization and all its workers/donors/board as "nuts" simply because they take a confrontational and controversial approach to their ad campaigns.

Besides which, being a vegan who's involved with animal rights campaigns, I've met my fair share of PETA members/donors/volunteers/workers, and even a few of their management-level people. Thus far, my experience has been that they're overall a caring, warm-hearted, well-meaning group of people. I can disagree with their tactics, but they agree with just about everything you wrote in your first paragraph above, and they put their time and money where their mouth is. Just something to consider.

:hi:

[Matariki]

52. This is the most well reasoned thing you posted in this thread.

better than snarky one-liners you seem to think are challenging.

A serious question - don't you think the 'stupid stunts' peta pulls off do more to harm their cause of ending animal cruelty than help it? I don't buy the idea that any publicity is good publicity for them. Clearly they alienate a lot of people who would otherwise be behind their cause. All you have to do is mention peta and you can see how hated they are.

Surely your energy and money would be better spent with an organization like the humane society? There must be other, less whacky animal rights organizations that aren't burdened with such a foul reputation?

[Ignis]

53. Then you haven't read the entire thread. (Edited)

If you had, you'd have seen the several posts where I said I'm not a PETA member--i.e., I neither work for nor donate to the organization.

(I do, however, donate to HSUS--as well as several other AR organizations that I'm sure DUers will find more acceptable. :eyes: )

So your assumptions regarding my energy and money expenditures are faulty. Perhaps you should assume less and read more?

:shrug:

In any event, I'll continue to poke anyone in the eye who makes idiotic, broad-brush statements about the sanity, morality, etc. of PETA members, just as I'd stand up to bullies who smear any group with bullshit, counter-factual claims. See my GOP example upthread, if I've somehow not made that point crystal fucking clear.

---

ETA: I'm an idiot, and I confused two threads on the same topic. The GOP example mentioned above is here in GD, not LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7400682

Mea culpa.

[Marxist Hypocrite]

60. Methinks you doth protest much

"In any event, I'll continue to poke anyone in the eye who makes idiotic, broad-brush statements about the sanity, morality, etc. of PETA members, just as I'd stand up to bullies who smear any group with bullshit, counter-factual claims. "



Quite the little ego you've got going for yourself.


If you're going to start assaulting people who spread misinformation about PETA, then there's no better place to start at home.


Funny how those people who make "idiotic, broad-bush statements about the sanity, morality" blah blah blah, wha wah wah are able to actually concisely support their statements with evidence, but the best argument you seem capable of coming up with in return is a resounding "NUH-UH!"

[Marxist Hypocrite]

59. Double Standards

"I'm not willing to condemn the entire organization and all its workers/donors/board as "nuts" simply because they take a confrontational and controversial approach to their ad campaigns."




No, but the rational and sane members of society aren't afraid to justifiably condemn them for spreading mass misinformation, condoning and even funding acts of violence and vandalism (no matter how badly the apologists want to wish this fact away), tresspassing on school property to harass children, sending death threats, trivializing slavery and the holocaust and demanding that animals be given the exact same rights enjoyed by human beings.

And then there's that pesky little unescapable fact that PETA itself, as an organization, KILLS the animals it purports to be saving.


PETA emails death threats to Australian supermodel
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/peta-issues-death-threat-against-melbourne-fashion-designer-alannah-hill/story-e6frewz0-1225758754122

PETA admits in court that the organization knowingly and intentionally kills animals
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial.cfm

7 facts the PETApologists desperately don't want you to know
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134


Gee, what a lot of good those people are bringing into the world. But I guess it's okay to overlook all that violence and depravity, seeing as how they push a message of vegan misinformation.


But no matter how irrefutable the evidence (ie; the organization's own public tax records) against PETA is, it can all be magically wished away by parroting some collectivist-joiner buzzphrase about "agribiz" or blaming it on propaganda from the right wing. I mean, I understand that this forum is a haven for misinformation, apologism and obfuscation, but in the case of PETA it's cut and dry.

[flvegan]

61. You joined and kicked this thread with bullshit from the far right CCF?

Enjoy your stay.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. What a leap!

So you believe in almost every single platform that PETA does, but you vehemently disassociate yourself from them to the point of calling them "nuts".

So what the *&%@ does that make you?

I'd like you to go to their website and list the positions that they take that are "nuts", and the ones you agree with. I guarantee that the latter will be much longer.

Its like a woman who believes in equal rights, equal pay, anti sexual discrimination laws etc.. but says that all those women before her that fought for those rights were "nuts"

Me thinks you've been hood winked by the corporate MSM and their aim to straightjacket anyone who doesn't tow the corporate line....Kucinich, Mckinney, Dean, or Acorn, MoveOn, and Media Matters.....we don't have to take them seriously anymore because EVERYONE knows they're NUTS!

[Zhade]

56. Get real. That's not bigotry.

Now us GLBT folks, we know bigotry. People dissing your chosen activist club? Not bigotry.

I swear, words used to mean something...

[Ignis]

57. OK, you win.

Point me to the scoreboard, and I'll make note of the fact that GLBT folks are far, far more oppressed than anyone who voluntarily joins a group.

But before you start belittling any prejudice against members of any "chosen activist club" :eyes: would you mind providing a list of group memberships that's are acceptable for progressives to hate? Is it OK if I call every single member of the SPLC "nuts," or call every ACLU member "stupid?"

:shrug:

And for about the millionth time, I'm not a PETA member. But thanks for the assumption. :hi: