Anna Wintour destroyed Vogue.

How they let her drag her old bones around Vogue's offices any more is beyond me.

Time for a change.

Posted by: kelly | September 6, 2007 05:45 PM

Awesome! That's Christina Cho! She went to my high school! You go girl!

Posted by: Sheldon | September 6, 2007 06:20 PM

If you've seen pictures of unshorn sheep you will realise it is in their best interests to swap wool for food and an annual haircut.

Posted by: rojo | September 6, 2007 07:05 PM

haha that woman deserves the pie.
awsome job guys!

Posted by: Ferretboy | September 7, 2007 05:07 AM

So let me get this straight. Its not ok to exploit animals, but its ok to exploit women. Come on, using sex to sell your views, smh.

Hyprocrits, are you kidding me. The only reason people will stop to look at her is because she is dressed up like a playboy pinup girl, not because of the message she is holding.

PETA, has issues, big ones. Its not ok for animals but its ok for human, women to be exploited.

Did she really need to be dressed up like a hooker, no. You could have gotten someone else, and why not a fat person, would that take away from PETA look, that all people who do not eat animals are skinny and sexy.

Please.

By the way, eating meat and dairy products dont make you fat. Eating a large amount of any type of food, mean or not will make you fat, if you do not exercise.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 12:51 PM

I am all in favor of picketing these fashion shows when they show fur, but out on the street, it is still warm. I dont think they would be seeing anyone wearing fur just yet to give them the violation notices.

Posted by: Rex's mom | September 7, 2007 02:16 PM

anna wintour is a disgrace of a human being and should play in traffic

Posted by: emma | September 8, 2007 12:33 PM

I have to disagree about the exploitation of women. Besides the fact that men have posed the same way for protests as the women being referred to, these women are given a choice. It is obvious by the amounts of clothed (and equally attractive) women participating in these protests that no one forces them to do it. It's a simple matter of "Hey, do you want to pose naked/semi-naked/in a skimpy outfit?" and "Sure, I have no problem with my body."/"Naw, I'm too modest for that."/"That's not for me, but I'll participate in other ways."

I mean really, it's not exploitation when women do it entirely willingly. It should be entirely acceptable for women to be proud of their bodies and show them for good purposes.

Posted by: Jessica | September 9, 2007 12:12 AM

Dear Anonymous,
So, as a woman, I should have the right to make choices about my body, right? The right to choose how it is used, dressed, and publicly displayed every day. If I chose to dress like that young woman in my daily life, or even for a night out at the club, am I being exploited? NO.

If I choose to put my physical appearance to use in support of a cause that I wholeheartedly support, are you going to tell me that because I am a WOMAN and it might be exploitation, I CAN'T?

How is that feminism? How can a feminist tell me as a woman that it's ok for me to stay fully dressed and hand out fliers, but not ok to choose to be scantily-clad in support of my cause so that people take notice? You can't have it both ways--either I am entitled to use my female body in any way that I choose, or I'm not.

Posted by: Soli | September 9, 2007 06:08 PM

Phoenix, AZ NBC 12 News
9/10/2007 4:46 PM
While doing a story about Cedric the King Cobra serving guard duty at Harrod's, Lin Sue Cooney said that Cedric "would make a nice handbag". Could this be the attitude of NBC?

Posted by: P. C. Preston | September 10, 2007 08:07 PM