I think Cindy Crawford should be required to watch a uncensored video on the making of a fur coat.

MA Moore

Posted by: ma moore | October 26, 2007 04:08 PM

I think Cindy Crawford should be required to watch a uncensored video on the making of a fur coat.

MA Moore

Posted by: ma moore | October 26, 2007 04:08 PM

I think Cindy Crawford should be required to watch a uncensored video on the making of a fur coat.

MA Moore

Posted by: ma moore | October 26, 2007 04:08 PM

I am fine with disagreeing with another person's words and deeds, but I don't think that mean spirited personal attacks serve the cause.

Posted by: Peter | October 26, 2007 04:25 PM

What a loser.

Posted by: Canaduck | October 26, 2007 05:05 PM

it is pretty amazing how much peta and their legions drool over everyone who sprouts the peta lines but when then turn their back on them... watch out but their nothing but pure dirt.... what makes peta think that they are all so mighty that they get to determine people's worth....
actually... who really gives a crap about what peta has to say?

Posted by: steve | October 26, 2007 05:29 PM

guess she thought it would be off the radar since it was Russian Vogue.... wow the one step forward is nice- it's the two steps back that is such a bitch to handle!

Posted by: Russell | October 26, 2007 05:32 PM

guess she thought it would be off the radar since it was Russian Vogue.... wow the one step forward is nice- it's the two steps back that is such a bitch to handle!

Posted by: Russell | October 26, 2007 05:33 PM

Hello,

Though I am against what Cindy Crawford did and is doing I don't think it's right to call her names like "Washed up" and "Mole ridden", that makes us look just as bad as she is...
Take the nasty out of it we are the ones who are right here and cruelty in any facet is wrong.
Thanks and peace,
Brigette

Posted by: Brigette | October 26, 2007 05:44 PM

Cindy Who??????

Posted by: Kerry | October 26, 2007 05:47 PM

How in the world do you go from "I don't wear fur" too, "Here's the whole colonie I'm wearing!" What's the matter with you? You either don't care for animals or you love them and are willing to sacrifice money to get your message across! Which I think would get you more respect for being other then, you know, semi- retired!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 26, 2007 05:59 PM

I saw her face from near! When ugliness becomes evident - the principles are vanishing! It's more easy to hide a fading beauty and an ugly heart behind a lovely fur! At least it's clear that she cannot enter into competition with Alicia Silverstone or Sophie Monk - she lost everything - not just Richard Gere!

Posted by: Pablito | October 26, 2007 06:14 PM

How in the world do you go from "I don't wear fur" too, "Here's the whole colonie!" I'm suspecting you don't care about animals like the 1st ad would like us to believe, now that you traded your compassion for semi-retired ego! Good luck! I'ld like to think the world is changing, umm, without you!!

Posted by: Carla | October 26, 2007 06:16 PM

I agree, I think attacking a person's appearance only discredits our cause.

I think showing the two pictures of Cindy side by side with the dates say enough.

Posted by: Poodle | October 26, 2007 06:54 PM

Another bad soul

Posted by: liliana | October 26, 2007 07:19 PM

ditto on the personal attacks.

Just out of interest, how do you tell a faux fur from the real thing?

Posted by: rojo | October 26, 2007 07:24 PM

Prepare to be further outraged by the fashion industry! November 2007 US edition of Elle Magazine. Not only do they have several advertisements promoting fur, including for Saks and Bloomingdales, but the magazine has also dedicated a whole feature to fur! This is 2007 and fashion giants are still treating fur as a status symbol, and people are still buying it!!!

Posted by: Natalie Dickson | October 26, 2007 07:29 PM

Peter, I am sure the animals whose lives have been spared by PETA's various campaigns would disagree with you.

Sometimes asking nicely or simply trying to educate people just does not work, especially when it comes to animal rights issues. Cindy Crawford of all people should bloody well know better, given that she had previously taken part in PETA's anti-fur campaign - she has shown herself to be a heartless, greedy individual and people should know the truth of what she has done.

Posted by: Michele | October 26, 2007 08:12 PM

she is such a hideous fur hag. desperate and definitely pathetic! I HOPE I DON'T RUN INTO HER IN DEKALB OR MALIBU COLONY.....

Posted by: ccblizz | October 26, 2007 08:25 PM

I think there is a time for being polite... and this is not one. I don't really care what Cindy thinks or anyone else for that matter. I do worry about how the animals felt as their skins were being torn off their bodies. I bet they weren't concerned about "mean spirited personal attacks"

Posted by: Janet Nilsen | October 26, 2007 08:30 PM

what a sell out.
i dont hate here that much for wearing fur but dont do ads for peta if you dont mean what you say.

Posted by: Antoinette | October 26, 2007 08:38 PM

what a sell out.
i dont hate here that much for wearing fur but dont do ads for peta if you dont mean what you say.

Posted by: Antoinette | October 26, 2007 08:39 PM

And to think Pamela invited her to her wedding...

Posted by: AnimalLib | October 26, 2007 09:28 PM

Also, she's not washed up, don't be silly jack. I see her every morning at 2 o'clock doing infomercials! That's sort of work?

Posted by: AnimalLib | October 26, 2007 09:50 PM

I always thought she looked like a tranny..... not that trannys are bad.

Posted by: Lucinda | October 26, 2007 09:56 PM

Dont forget her R.C.Willey furniture line that features leather couches!

Posted by: karen silva | October 26, 2007 10:01 PM

Dont forget her R.C.Willey furniture line that features leather couches!

Posted by: karen silva | October 26, 2007 10:01 PM

What a wretched and sad excuse for a human being. I think she's an ugly person and a washed-up, withered, mole-faced hag who's career was over 10 years ago. Go away, no one cares about you anymore. People who wear fur are disgusting and vile.

Posted by: Brandy | October 26, 2007 11:08 PM

Sorry. This be skank material.

Crawford even pimps her own children to get herself into the rag mags or the tabloids.

There's isn't an ounce of dignity in her body or mind.

Posted by: kelly | October 26, 2007 11:47 PM

Apparently C.C. did the anti-fur campaign to get publicity ONLY and couldn't really have cared less about the animals' tortures. So by not fulfilling her own signed statement, she has obviously proven herself to be a morally bankrupt washed-up model - who desperately must have attention despite any cost to suffering.
Maybe next time, she'll be wearing a coat made from the furs of moles.

Posted by: Ariel | October 27, 2007 08:26 AM

She obviously doesnt care and does what she wants. She is out to make a dollar at any cost.

Do not commit to something, especially a cause, only to back out and do something else against the cause you signed up for!

Posted by: Darla Majick | October 27, 2007 08:41 AM

I agree with Peter. "Mole-ridden face"? Attacking someone or making fun of their looks is SO 4th grade. Nor do I agree that you can "require" anyone to watch anything. I think a respectful letter to her would be more appropriate, asking her why she has chosen to turn her back on her previous commitment to not wear fur, and how we might convince her to re-join the cause.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 27, 2007 09:27 AM

bitch needs money have not seen her face for a long time so she grabs what she can to make a buck thats what they all do all those people who hurt animals and promote the fur they have no education thats the only work they could do they have no brains to get a real job i really hate people like that one day the tables will turn on them

Posted by: Tracy H | October 27, 2007 09:47 AM

She's such a disappointment!

Posted by: Curtis | October 27, 2007 01:50 PM

well she is washed up, I guess she wanted to be seen again and didnt care what she murdered to get there

Posted by: carolyn | October 27, 2007 02:31 PM

i think she rather deserves it. If you have no intention of sticking to something you say.. for example not wearing fur.. you shouldant say it. and you deserve any comment that comes your way.

Posted by: Marriah | October 27, 2007 04:19 PM

yes i would just add a comment about Cindy Crawford,that is just not cool in what she is doing ,spiritual she is bankrupted..read Bhagavad-Gita as it is...

Posted by: joseph | October 27, 2007 06:57 PM

It's very disappointing when you admire a celebrity for being compassionate and doing the right thing and then they do something like this. They have so much influence. It makes me sick to see someone wearing fur, but even more disgusted when they are fully aware of the pain and suffering it causes as Cindy Crawford is.

Posted by: Shelley | October 27, 2007 07:08 PM

I agree,this is a tasteless article

Posted by: dasia | October 27, 2007 11:02 PM

Ma Moore,

Have you ever made a fur coat?

Posted by: John | October 27, 2007 11:30 PM

Cindy WHO?

Posted by: Nancy | October 27, 2007 11:59 PM

If everyone banned leather wouldn't there be more rubber and plastic factories to pollute the earth? Also, wouldn't it promote over seas employment equalling less US jobs?
I am confused about PETA. I don't know which direction the organization is taking.

Posted by: stacey bernethy | October 28, 2007 11:16 AM

I used to be a fan of Cindy's back when she was famous and stopped wearing fur. I won't buy anything attached to her name. You pegged her right - she is a sell out !!

Posted by: Amy Scott | October 28, 2007 12:07 PM

shame shame double shame

Posted by: john | October 28, 2007 02:12 PM

It's unfortunate that Cindy Crawford has become so desperate to be in the limelight that she has forgot the mayhem that's created when "creating" a fur. I, too, believe she should watch first hand how animals are killed/tortured for the sake of fur. I use to have a positive opinion of Cindy, but now it's tainted, since her front cover ad endorses fur making. Cindy really needs to see the inhumane practices that take place when "creating a fur." It haunts me. It's so cruel!!!!!!!!! How could she promote wearing fur? It's such a sickening procedure!

Posted by: Dawna Berger | October 28, 2007 03:28 PM

Are you serious.
"Since Crawford is so desperate for her mole-ridden face to be seen, maybe it’s time to bring back the poster we used last time . . ."

your tacky petty attack does nothing but discredit your cause and make you look week and a little crazy.

Posted by: chill out | October 28, 2007 03:46 PM

Wow, that's pretty hypocritical of her to sign a pledge not to wear fur and then turn around and flaunt her dead animal "fashion". if she wanted to keep wearing dead animals, maybe she shouldn't have signed a pledge not to. DUH...

Posted by: Brittney | October 28, 2007 06:56 PM

I agree that it is not right for her to say that she is anti-fur and then turn around and promote fur by posing for a magazine cover. However, personally attacking her holds no purpose, and actually has nothing to do with the topic. Saying those things about her will do no good in stopping people who wear fur. Look at the facts and leave your personal opinions out of it. That is the real way to make a difference.

Posted by: julianne | October 29, 2007 02:09 AM

Celebrities have significant power to promote awareness. They are public figures. For Cindy to go against her public vow not to wear fur, then she is leaving herself vulnerable to personal attack, which in this case, i believe she rightfully desrves.

Posted by: Lisa | October 29, 2007 02:55 AM

Tsk Tsk, shame on you Cindy

Posted by: K | October 29, 2007 04:00 AM

Shame on her!

Posted by: Niranjan | October 29, 2007 06:55 AM

Cindy Crawford, what a washed-up loser!! Only stupid people wear fur!

Posted by: Susan | October 29, 2007 10:00 AM

I agree with Peter. This kind of extremist behaviour, personal attacks and what-have-you that don't make sense are part of the reason why no matter how sorry I feel for the animals, I personally remove myself from these kinds of campaigns.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2007 12:17 PM

She obviously is not getting any work,,, these people are only publicity and money grabbers. She should have signed a document not to wear fur to do your advert

Posted by: Jaquie Walsh | October 29, 2007 12:43 PM

again to all those who are helping the fur-hag: the horrible crime of skinning helpless animals alive which spent their whole lifes in a tiny cage with 20 degrees or more down from zero or being trapped and agonizing for days: you and your murderers are the extremists and fanatical killers who want to impose on us just and right people and animals your brutal fascist way of life - with this mentality there shall never be peace on this earth - never!!!

Posted by: little big woman | October 29, 2007 12:58 PM

steve: it's you who gives a crap and this continuously! go for a freezy sledge tour together with the other wanker!!!

Posted by: rondo | October 29, 2007 02:29 PM

She is a complete loser! Yes, I agree she is morally bankrupt and she will do anything for money. You can't even see her botox filled face. I would not even who was in the picture wearing dead animals if you didn't tell me. Her career is over and she has nothing left, not even pride or self respect.

Karma is a bitch!

Posted by: gia | October 29, 2007 03:08 PM

triple shame

shametacular

shamefrenzy

shametrocity

shameamanjaro.

(From Halo 2)

Posted by: Caboose | October 29, 2007 03:49 PM

When God casts out the meateaters and animal abusers into the firery flames of hell, it's not going to be nice and it's not going to be polite. God is no respecter of persons.

Posted by: Kimberly | October 29, 2007 04:44 PM

Anyone in this time period that is still wearing fur is just tacky...Apparently Cindy has more than proven that her career is on the breaking point, and she will do ANYTHING to be seen..even fake a peta ad!

Steve...What exactly do you expect an organization that beleives strongly in not harming animals...wearing fur...to do when a person that has committed to a the cause of not wearing fur turns around and does so? Do you expect them to praise that person? Peta sends a strong, and loud message on where they stand on animal issues, they unlike Cindy Crawford are consistent in their message....And please tell me how Peta being against people wearing fur determines their worth??? I will say it take a lame person to run around wearing a dead animal on their back..knowing that the animal suffered great pain in the process...this is not the 60's people are more informed than ever the process of getting fur....even though I did hear a model one time on America’s top model that thought fur came from animals that died of natural causes!!! As far as who gives a crap what Peta has to say well apparently you do or you would not be reading things on a PETA website...........

Posted by: Dana | October 29, 2007 05:01 PM

Anything for money. She's disgusting. Oh and Steve....ALOT of people give a crap what PETA says. Maybe some of you out there that are attacking PETA should go to the website and watch a video on the fur industry.

Posted by: Lisa | October 29, 2007 05:54 PM

Wow! Way to show people how to be the bigger person. Lets try something a little more mature how about you don't put people down and just say, She isn’t a popular model anymore, though she must have forgotten that wearing fur isn't that great. Mole ridden face? OH NO! SO HORRIBLE! MAKING FUN OF SOMEONE ISN'T GOING TO MAKE IT GO AWAY!

Remember if you cant say anything nice don't say anything at all.
There is a better way to tell people that what you think she is doing is not right, then seeming like a closed minded B!tch.

Posted by: Anne | October 29, 2007 07:20 PM

To the person(people) below me, i dont think wearing furs isnt really that bad, also, peta should stop making people sick to their stomach by watching some gross video. After all, i just went hunting today and killed 4 birds, am i the devil????

Posted by: Colin | October 29, 2007 08:28 PM

Kimberly

meateaters dont always equal abusers. It is not wrong to be an omnivore. It's wrong when an org. tells you what you should be thinking and eating (1984ish). Who is this "God" person or thing you speak of? Apparently, he/she is bitter and doesnt respect anything.

Posted by: Caboose | October 29, 2007 11:28 PM

Hey, to those who dislike Peta determining the value of people by their appearance: I agree. I'm seeing a big problem in the use of women's bodies to get the message for animal rights out. By using only specific body types, as well as using sexualized images of women that say one should be vegetarian to lose weight instead of for ethical reasons, Peta is setting up an exchange of the rights and personhood of one group (women) for that of another (animals). I don't think this is useful or ok, no one deserves to be treated like meat, and the irony in some of the images that play on this concept while reinforcing it seems to be lost on the organization. I'm going to find another group, that fits with my passion for animal rights and respects women at the same time. These images don't help the cause, they discredit it and turn people (like myself) off.

Posted by: Alex | October 30, 2007 03:32 AM

I didn't realize that Cindy Crawford had previously signed a pledge not to wear fur. That does throw a different light on this current issue. She can be roundly criticized for that and it's a good thing if she is. But I still say that name-calling and criticizing her personal appearance (moles, age, etc.) are off-limits and childish. I think the argument that sticks is the fact that she KNOWS what's involved in the fur-trade and participates in it anyway. That just plain sucks.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 30, 2007 09:23 AM

You know whats weird?
Cindy is on Oprah Today.
So I dont think that makes her a washed up model.
She seems like a wonderful mom and wife.
Why cant you say Cindy a formal popular model who makes a wonderful mom and wife, is wearing fur. Cindy would be much more attractive if she left the fur on the animals.

Posted by: Moni | October 30, 2007 06:16 PM

Ohoh...I'm glad I saw this in time...

I am rescuing a female parakeet in DeKalb, IL next week. (A four hour drive for me)

And I was thinking of naming her "Cindy", cause Cindy Crawford is from DeKalb. Looks like that's not gonna happen!

BUT I can now tell the story of what the bird's name was GOING to be and why it's not...

We dont' know of any fur-hags named "Clarice" do we??

Posted by: Tamara | October 30, 2007 07:58 PM

lisa.... if i wanted to watch & hear fiction stories, i'd turn on the disney channel

and why do all of you petaphiles so follow the all mighty word of peta... what makes you think that everything they say is god's word and perfectly correct..... peta is big business with a arsenal of 60 million dollars plus.... and big business never plays by the rules,,,,,,

Posted by: common sense steve | October 30, 2007 08:29 PM

Wow! That's a really pretty coat. Not my style but lovely colors.

Posted by: Hannah | October 30, 2007 10:20 PM

Caboose,

God is the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and all of it's inhabitants. God has given us plants and beans as food. If you have ever gone to Church or listened to sermons on television, very commonly you will hear God is the same today, yesterday, and tomarrow. Well in the beginning, the Book of Genesis, it is written that God intended for us to be Vegans (it has to do with the blood, your not suppose to have that among other reasons). So if God is the same today and yesterday we are still not suppose to eat animals. Now, with the cruelty that is Factory Farming it doesn't take much imagination to understand why this is forbidden on that level. Go back and read my posts under Faux Gras it explains in better detail. My God is the God of Jesus Christ. You are not suppose to eat the beasts. Peta is doing People (not to mention animals) an enormous favor. I believe with all of my heart that if you have meat in your belly, when Jesus splits the Eastern Sky your going to go to hell no matter who you are. Thats why the Bible says that all of a mans rightousness is like filthy rags, and I believe that this has to do with this very issue. I had a hard time wrapping my brain around this. How could that be. Say, a person who spends their life preaching and thinks they are doing the right thing, but the Bible says if you give away all you have to the poor and you have not love in your heart your nothing but a big noise, if you speak in the tongues of Angels and men and you have not love in your heart your nothing but a big noise. You can't have a heart full of love and a belly full of misery. Those priests, who decieved Moses, and started this meat eating gig with the people of God (the bloodline of Christ) were the villians in the Bible. Jesus called them a bunch of whitewashed tombs full of dead mens bones. Nobody had the audacity to speak to the high priests like that except Christ and in that sense God is no respecter of persons is says that in the Bible. And believe me millions of people are being decieved by this lie. The Bible itself in the forword says it is MARRED WITH MISTAKES AND HAS GRAVE ERRORS. Eating meat is that error it is THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT! I thank you caboose for you polite inquiry, only a fool would come on this website and mock the good, righteous and merciful people that inhabit this space.

Posted by: Kimberly | October 31, 2007 12:18 AM

am sorry that so many of you think that Peta is extreme in their way of trying to get animal rights issues across. You may not agree with their choice of how to relay certain messages to the public, but I think you must keep focus on the reasons behind it. When it comes to animal rights you have no other choice but to make yourself seen, and heard! There just is not away to sugar coat the things going on in animal rights...for if you do not hit people head on with your message they will not see it. If you want an animal rights group that tries to tone down animal abuse, and make it look more G rated well the message will get no where. I would advice for each, and everyone of you that criticize PETA to watch the documentary coming out next month on HBO.. Maybe this will give you some insight on to how hard these people work, how passionate about their cause they are...and why you must use the shock value of things to get your point across. Animal rights activist do not want to blend into the crowd for if they do the way animals are currently treated will not change. I would think even if some of you do not like or agree with Peta you could at least respect their cause...and the determination they have to make a difference in animals lives. Ingrid is someone that I look up to with a great deal of respect she took her passion for animals, and I think her calling here on earth, and did something about it. She made a stand on what she believed in, and I think a lot of you could learn a lot from her. To many people in this world today just sit back and look at different things going on around them, and say oh this is bad but as long as it does not effect me or my family I just will not get involved....but then you come on here and say negative things about people that do have the guts to stand for something. Peta has faced challenges and hurdles from day one, but they keep going strong, they never back down. By people coming on here saying hateful, negative things it only shows more what an impact PETA has had on society...I think it is actually great that some of PETA’S critics come on here to leave comments, because each time someone comes on to this website if they are for or against PETA it is a new opportunity for them to learn something new. The only message I have for all of you is strive hard to become part of the solutions, and stop working so hard to add to the problems....

Posted by: Dana | October 31, 2007 08:44 AM

To Kimberly and to Dana,

I really, really enjoyed reading both of your posts!
Each one was coming from different views, and both have so much insight and broadness to offer. So many good things to point out, but I'll just mention one:

Dana, I have been saying that one thing particularly for most of my life, that people complain about all the bad situations that's going on around them and do nothing because (they think) it doesn't affect them. It's like they would rather put more energy into worthless complaining instead of taking a stand about what they're complaining about to make situations better.
So here we are as a/r's activists -taking a stand- trying to promote kindness and respect for the innocent animals, and stop the cruelty that is thrust upon them, with all of its ill affects and effects that actually affects everyone far and wide for the worse.
And since we are trying to do something about how bad situations are in this world, we get scorned sometimes by people saying we should be doing this, that, or the other thing instead, while they still do nothing but think about themselves.

Posted by: Ariel | November 1, 2007 09:38 AM

It is unfortunate that I read about this article in another entertainment article and all they could show to represent PETA is the few on here who have chosen to slander Cindy Crawford and speak nasty about her. Maybe PETA should edit the comments so that these tactless few don't give other PETA supporters a bad image of such hatefulness. The article totally lost the true intent of what PETA was trying to do because the focus is now on the hateful and malicious words of those few posts above. Get off line ladies. You are a disservice to everyone who tries to make a difference. There is no room for such talk and hatefulness when we are facing issues with animals with love and sincerity. We don't want you representing us so please stay off the posts.

Posted by: Tonia Vickery | November 1, 2007 12:04 PM

Kimberly,
You need to read further into Genesis. When God created Adam and Eve, he told them to eat of the plants but once they fell from grace, God gave them the beasts to eat. Also, when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, God made them coverings of LEATHER!

Posted by: Nancy | November 1, 2007 12:28 PM

Cindy obviously cares more about money than the well being of other living things which i personally find disgusting...she was already forgotten by most, and the only exception were the people of PETA who were happy she pledged to go fur-free. Now she's got no one.
You brought it upon yourself, Cindy, sorry!

Posted by: candi | November 1, 2007 11:20 PM

Ariel, Kimberly and Dana

These people that enjoy ridiculing animal advocates are those that do nothing for both human and non-human animals. They take their pleasure in slinging insults and ridicule to those that are courageous and compassionate enough to fight for the rights of animals. One has to self-less for the benefit of animals but these people are both selfish and greedy. Although being an advocate can be so difficult facing daily the cruelty and violence animals endure every moment of everyday the rewards of helping animals are so much more fulfilling . One must always be strong in the face of human arrogance and extreme cruelty. Keep fighting the good fight!

Posted by: Ana | November 2, 2007 01:11 PM

Kimberly the religious nutjob

Religion is wrong. Science is right. "God" does not exist. If "he" created the universe, how was "he" created? SCIENCE can explain it in a RELATIVE way.

Religion is also dangerous. Cause of many wars! Cause of many deaths. Cause of many idiots like Bush (It is dangerous to have a religious leader).

Posted by: Caboose | November 3, 2007 07:42 PM

You are wrong Nancy and as mean as you are stupid, and I suspect about more than this issue alone. So go ahead eat the beast. It is not me you will answer too.

I have read the Bible and it most certainly is, apart from some bad editing and clear deceptions and errors as stated in the forword of the King James version entirely oppossed to eating animals, or abusing them in any way.

Posted by: Kimberly | November 3, 2007 11:49 PM

Thank you Ariel and Ana. We serve a GOOD, MERCIFUL, AND LOVING GOD.

Posted by: Kimberly | November 4, 2007 12:04 AM

Cindy Crawford is so sad and totally irrelevant. She's making ugly furniture now and still doing those haitcolor adds. Hey Cindy, hope your mole becomes cancerous.

Posted by: Victoria | November 8, 2007 09:37 PM

Just so you guys know, she was wearing the Fur for a Model Shoot. It may have not even been her choice to wear the fur. Plus, it's a picture. How can you tell that the fur is real? Besides, where is it your place to judge? Last I checked, that was God's job. Just like it was God's job to put animals on the earth for us to EAT and use to keep us WARM!

Posted by: Teenie | January 6, 2008 07:37 PM

I have only recently started reading petas website and trying to learn more about animal rights.

But if the personal attacks are standard OP for peta and the like then I won't be reading for long.

abusing people for wearing fur is just as bad as her saying no to fur and then wearing it.

People WILL be turned off from caring about peta or animals if all they hear are rants and judgemental sarcastic remarks that have nothing to do with the issue , they are just simply personal attacks on appearence.

If you truly care for animal rights then you need to see that alot of people instatntly associate PETA with *CRAZY* and will never even try to see the message due to their perceptions of the organization.

There are good and bad ways to get a message across...I know you want shock value so people will listen , but for the one person you get using it 10 more have turned away.

Posted by: tia | January 7, 2008 12:22 PM

Cindy Crawford knows better, obviously, since she once did an add for PETA. So we know she's been made aware of the ethical choice to help, not hurt animals. There's no excuse. She has the advantage of knowledge and choice. The suffering and abused animals don't have any choice at all. Cindy, like other celbs, are in a unique position since they reach millions of people through adds and other media. People hear and see them in a big way. They can make a difference for the better or they can help to make matters worse. The way I see it celebs have a special responsibility to bring positive change rather than cause more harm or add to the problem. It would be great to see more celebs take an ethical and caring stand for animal rights; make a big deal by standing out strong against cruelty to animals. It really ony takes one thing; the desire to do so. It's sad to see that Cindy and many others in her position don't seem to have that desire.

Posted by: Jackie | January 7, 2008 02:37 PM

*fake puke* I really don't get how people can ware corpses.

Posted by: Ruth | January 7, 2008 04:08 PM

First off, PETA, despite what some people may say, is not extreme. Nor is it plainly a one-sided propaganda. Sure it seems to not show the other viewpoint, but that's because the other viewpoint has been spoon fed to society already. Now on to Cindy. Cindy is by no means excused for her behavior. I'm not going around saying "BECOME VEGAN!" but fur is tragic. Even in the fashion world. So many more people put their status on faux furs now. I don't like fur when it isn't on its proper owner... but if Cindy had only done the Vogue shoot it wouldn't be a huge issue. Hypocrites are the worst. Especially when they're only doing it for attention. (and name calling IS so 4th grade.)

Posted by: Darielle | January 8, 2008 07:20 PM

let me tell you this.if shaming and humiliating people into not wearing fur or any other animal product works,then i am all for it.thanks PETA.

Posted by: LuAnne | January 9, 2008 01:01 PM

Yuk! to take a pledge not to wear fur,with the clear implication that you are aware of the despicable suffering involved in its production,and then appear in an ad promoting fur - now THAT is ugly!
I can't understand how anyone can be so lacking in decency and compassion that they can wear fur in the full knowledge of the horror of it - and let's face it - no-one these days can claim to be ignorant in this issue.
I have nothing but contempt for these people - they exist in a void of self-absorption and superficiality.

Posted by: Pam Fioretti | January 10, 2008 02:31 AM

I think Cindy Crawford deserves to be called every name in the book. Supporting the skinning of animals is just plain wrong. What a hypocritical bitch.

Posted by: Elise | January 12, 2008 01:45 PM

Wow, there's some intense arguments going on here. One person seems to be imposing their religious views/interpretations on people who disagree, several seem to be promoting this, several seem to frown upon it, several are trying to impose their religious views/interpretations on the first person, and one seems to disagree completely with the concept of religion...interesting and fun to read...but I'll limit myself to just reading their posts and staying out of the actual argument.

On to Cindy Crawford. Wearing dead animal skin after possessing full knowledge of the creation of said animal skin and signing a pledge not to wear animal skin any more.... it makes me rather surprised. While I do think she deserves all the names she's been called, I also think that what she deserves shouldn't necessarily be what she should get. While most cases demand full retribution, I think, in this case, PETA should be less subjective on it.

Just the fact that she wore the fur coat after pledging not to do so is more than enough information for others to revise or make an opinion of her. People who love and care for animals will respond negatively to her actions, people who could care less about animals will wonder why it should matter what she upholds.

By name-calling, PETA is alienating several possible supporters and giving others reason to insult PETA. If PETA had stayed less subjective on the topic, and let the readers make an opinion rather than imposing upon the readers their own opinion of Cindy, the responses might have been much more positive.

However, this is just one possible scenario since no one can know for sure what COULD have happened had PETA been less subjective, but I'd like to think that less is more. Letting others know what Cindy had done is probably enough since most people can take it from there.

Posted by: Dys | January 12, 2008 09:57 PM

Why is everyone so quick to attack her...yes she did an ad of PETA and then Russian Vogue...BUT...how do we know what she is waring is real fur?

What is thats a coat made of Faux Fur and the article is about the alternate safer way of being fashionable?

Now unless someone has read the Russian Magazine i don't think anyone has the right to attack her.

Posted by: Z | January 13, 2008 12:29 PM

I hope someone skins and wears her... :D

Posted by: Anon | January 13, 2008 10:51 PM

Breaking her vow is bad, but honestly I personally think her outfit looks pretty good on her

Posted by: Fellick Slipknot | January 14, 2008 12:03 PM

To start with let me state that I am an atheist, and that I can think of few if any convincing moral arguments for eating meat, although I continue to do so despite the blatant hypocrisy; I am afraid I just lack the will and moral conviction to follow what I judge to be right, and am aware that in many peoples eyes and often my own that makes me a fairly poor excuse for a thinking, reasoning being.

Now with those cards on the table, I think what people are missing is that many people aren't objecting to isn't extreme action, such as distressing videos highlighting animal suffering, which can be highly effective that. Instead their problem lies with the juvenile personal attacks within the article that do little more then preach to the choir. It weakens your position to resort to such needless insults, when informing people of her hypocrisy would be just as effective, without making you seem so petty. Not to mention the implication that being "mole-ridden" (and to be fair she only has one mole) is on the same level as wearing fur.

On a tangent note involving the discussion of God and the Bible, it does say in the story of Cain and Able that God looked with favour on "fat portions from... the firstborn of the flock" and without favour on "the fruits of the soil", which would seem to imply that God condoned the rearing of livestock.

Posted by: Jim | January 17, 2008 04:57 AM

God never condones vanity or cruelty for cruelty's sake (wearing fur is both vain and cruel). It comes down to the mercy issue. We are to be merciful towards all of creation, as we expect God to be merciful towards us.

Posted by: Rebecca | January 18, 2008 01:27 PM

God never condones vanity or cruelty for cruelty's sake (wearing fur is both vain and cruel). It comes down to the mercy issue. We are to be merciful towards all of creation, as we expect God to be merciful towards us.

Posted by: Rebecca | January 18, 2008 01:27 PM

Cindy Crawford should be ashamed of herself. What a total hypocrite, she either is incredibly thick or just doesn't give a shit. I used to work for Lynx the anti fur group and we came up against incredibly stupid people all the time, and the other type of fur wearing person, who has no sense of morality and is insensitive to the plight of animals.This second type of person is so self obsessed and lacking of any substance that they can only think of their own self image, forgetting what suffering goes into a fur coat. Linda McCartney put it best "RICH BITCH".

Posted by: Sam kelly | January 18, 2008 02:21 PM

MURDER!!! MURDER!!! MURDER!!!
I can not believe anyone would want to wear or have any accesories that are dead animals but to break a promise! Well that's just sad, I can think of loads of words to describe any person that wears fur and 'Cindy Crawford' relates to all of these:
Idiot, stupid, mean, horrible, dis-honest, ugly, terrible, murderer, evil, UGLY, UGLY UGLY, EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!! and many more, but any one who wears fur or animal skin for fashion is Ugly and EVIL!

Posted by: Fern Kelly | January 18, 2008 02:30 PM

I would like to respond to Jim's comments January 17 2008. Clearly with the hour he wrote his comment the brain was not quite functioning at full capacity. He refers to God condoning the rearing of livestock. Well DOH the animals used for fur are not livestock or reared as livestock. Therefore his comments are irrelevant and clearly he needs some education rather desperately.
A Chinchilla Jim is not an animal that could be categorised as livestock. WAKE UP and smell the coffee mate!!!!

Posted by: Sam kelly | January 18, 2008 02:37 PM

You guys are missing the point. The coat looks good.

Posted by: asdf | January 21, 2008 10:25 PM

I completely agree with Brigette who posted a while back. Insulting only brings you down to their level. I really dont like some people within PETA, Infact I'm against the whole organization itself. Its nothing personal, its just the way they handle things. Like say their anti-fur actions. You bitch at celebrities for wearing fur when you could be using your time for something MUCH more useful. I have no clue how the law system works but we could atleast try to regulate the amount of fur we allow in. that way we could keep a better eye on the fur "farmed" in America, how the animals are put down and how they are treated until they die. I'd prefer no fur at all because I dont see any use of fur besides it keeps you warm, and the way they are put down now is INhuman.

Posted by: Cody | January 22, 2008 10:06 AM

I might not always agree with PETA's ways all the time, but what matters is that they are going in the right direction. So I am not going to criticize them and hinder them in their fight, while they save millions of animals unjustly suffering, but support them. And when it comes to Crawford. She just disgusts me and should be named and shamed. That is raising awareness of what she does and putting pressure on her to stop. Rally behind this action and she will stop if so many people don't like it and if she's made aware of it. As a consequence, the beauty role model that she is will no longer wear fur, and therefore her followers (i.e. a lot of people) won't. geddit????)

Posted by: Jay Grand | January 22, 2008 03:02 PM

it makes me worry and angry to read about discussions about god, adam and eva and all of them here. it's bad enough to discuss about the right of living of animals. we have to appreciate and respect our nature mainly animals. animals are the honestly creatures of the world and we are the disrespectuliest! sorry for this english!

Posted by: martin | January 23, 2008 03:35 PM

Cindy Crawford is a hypocrite and a corporate whore who will do whatever for the mighty dollar just like Naomi Campbell. You can forgive someone for being ignorant and not being aware, but those two? "we would rather go naked than wear fur"? HYPOCRITES!

Posted by: carl | January 24, 2008 12:30 PM

I don't think that anyone can say that these people don't deserve what they get - I am shocked that in an above comment/s someone even tried to make a joke about this "I think her outfit looks quite nice" etc - How pathetic...

...that was real funny..

Shes deserves all the abuse thrown at her!

Posted by: Jodi | January 24, 2008 01:35 PM

What a shame Cindy Crawford!
if you believe that you are a super model and a confident one, you need not wear fur! You can just stripped yourself and everyone's out there will definitely look at you with admiring eyes. But NOT with the furs on, you looked as you are so desperate of proving yourself. And that's evil I should say.

Posted by: Qiwen | January 28, 2008 04:22 AM

What an idiot. Seems having no actual "work" has left her with boredom, bitchiness, and a split personality (or just crazed madness) to boot. Where's the love for the animals, Cindy?

Posted by: Jessica | January 29, 2008 03:05 AM

i dont think that it is right to be mean to a person for wearing a coat i think it looks great on her

im all for fur

Posted by: kaela | January 29, 2008 06:13 PM

To respond to Sam Kelly's post, you entirely ignored the majority of my post or the points made in them. My comment about God condoning livestock was mostly a tangent responding to Kimberly's arguments against meat eating, I wasn't suggesting that my quote could support wearing fur, and I don't support wearing fur in any way, it is certainly unjustifiable, when I can't even justify my selfish eating of meat.

Posted by: Jim | February 6, 2008 02:52 PM

what a fake bitch...everything for the money..i hope she dies!

Posted by: eef | February 7, 2008 04:27 PM

asdf - this is a PETA website, in other words, for the PROTECTION of animals against some as obvious as yourself who would probably have no problem with wearing dead animals. The whole point of this article is to show that some people do stupid things like ms crawford, not to look at the coat and go "ooohhhh". Why on earth would be the point of putting up a picture (on a PETA website) of someone who's trying to make a quick buck be for individuals such as yourself to admire such an atrosity!!?? If you want to look at real fur coats, go some place else. Or even better, get a knife, or something with a blunt object (whichever you think might hurt more) bash your head against something till you bleed, and then take that knife, put it against your head and skin the top of your head so that your hair is still on the skin and completely intact. Then come back on here and tell us how much it hurts. Oh wait, you won't be able to...
If that coat is real - it's discusting, and she should know better, it's not ignorance she has, it's just plain ARROGANCE!

Posted by: emma | February 15, 2008 09:56 AM