she shoudl have stopped her fur obsession out of the compassion ofher own heart and through her conscience.. not out of being 'bribed'or financially assisted out to do so..
she has proved herself to be selfish, self-centered, heartless and compassionless.. me..I woulnd't help out with a singel dime!!!
shame on Peta.. that money should have gone to shelters for all those homeless animals, feed etc. rather that on this so selfish self-obsessed self-absorbed only cares about herself and nothing else a horrid specimen of a woman..

Posted by: gemmaC | March 26, 2008 04:47 PM

She should jump on this deal. Peta is being extremely generous.

Posted by: Pamela Oates | March 26, 2008 05:28 PM

***Sigh. There are so many other, better things that could be done with this money.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | March 26, 2008 05:33 PM

I don't think PETA should be gloating that around---
They could be spending that money to HELP animals on fur farms, not bribing an out-dated singer out of foreclosure.

Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2008 05:47 PM

Not only that, but she needs to be reminded that the Jake Blues diet of "four whole fried chickens and a Coke" are certainly NOT doing her figure any good.

Posted by: Craig | March 26, 2008 06:34 PM

I have to say I'm not very impressed with this offer. That 19,000 can be spent on wayyyyy better things. if shes in foreclosure she wont be able to afford any more fur coats. can't you buy a piece of land to make a retirement home for circus animals etc. I dont think aretha has an impact on a lot of people.

Posted by: maeghan | March 26, 2008 07:21 PM

I'm surprised at Peta. I really am.. so she accepts the offer.. I mean the money.. then tries to 'wean' herself off her horrible habit of draping herself in dead animals skins and furs..
but it won't be a genuine act something that she would have done out of her own accord out of compassion for the poor animals.. but merely out of financial greed.. it would be a most INSINCERE act ..
well we shall see..
ps.. bribery is not the way to go about thing and AFrnaklin the avid fur wearer of all people!.. I'd rather bribe someone else far more worthy than her!

Posted by: YF | March 26, 2008 07:29 PM

I'm pretty certain this is not what people had in mind for every dollar or cent they kindly donated to PETA,.. (to help animals) but in this case.. the possibility to be used to pay back tax of some 'celebrity
who just happens to have a nasty habit of wearing real animal fur..
it's stunts like this that gives PeTA a bad name..
her financial woes.. those are her problems.. why pity (and bribe) this woman when she was so pitiless to all the animals killed for her to wear and consistently parade their dead pelts?? and I'll bet she has never donated even as much as a dime to ANY animal charity..

Posted by: Beth | March 26, 2008 08:16 PM

i use to buy every album aretha franklin put out .but i wouldnt put a dime in anything she had to sell.put her on the street at least she gets to keep her life and the animals she is wearing on her fat a-- didnt ray smith

Posted by: ray smith | March 26, 2008 09:13 PM

Maya can you get the f*ck off our website

thanks

Posted by: Russell | March 26, 2008 11:12 PM

I have to agree with the other posters. I'd rather that money not be given to Aretha. I'm not sure how animals will benefit from it in the long run.

Posted by: lynda downie | March 27, 2008 12:21 AM

I get that the money could go to other things but you have to realize, PETA isn't heartless you guys. They are helping someone who is obviously in need of some financial assistance. If she takes the offer, I think it would be a good thing to grow from for both parties involved.

Posted by: Elyse | March 27, 2008 12:35 AM

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. What about every other person that wears fur? Are you going to pay them too?

That money could have gone to actively saving animals rather than preventing something that has already been done.

Posted by: DeadTomato | March 27, 2008 05:02 AM

that woman has enough money and now that it has come down to her being paid to not wear fur is sick! if she had a heart in that large bady of hers maybe shed care enough not to wear it, instead now she is going to make 19,000 out of it. She makes me sick!

Posted by: karla | March 27, 2008 07:08 AM

There are campaigns, animals suffering and shelters both for domestic and free-living animals that could use the money.
Franklin does need a change of mind about the cruelty of fur.
Bribery is not ethical.

Posted by: Ana | March 27, 2008 08:03 AM

That is the dumbest thing I have heard in awhile.I will be really disappointed if Peta wastes so much money on on that woman.What were you all thinking?

Posted by: Karen | March 27, 2008 08:40 AM

This woman deserves to be homeless. She allows this torture to go on and doesn't care about the pain and suffering of others as long as she thinks she looks good. I say let her starve on the streets and use the $19,000 to help those who deserve it. Anyone who buys, sells, or wears fur is heartless, and there is no way around that.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 27, 2008 09:19 AM

On the surface it may seem that $19,000 is TOO much, but PETA knows fully well how far name recognition goes in helping animals with a population that is very selfish and indifferent. I think it is worth the money.

Posted by: Gerry Ardigliano | March 27, 2008 09:57 AM

I don't wear fur ever and no one's every given me $19k for it.

Posted by: Woah. | March 27, 2008 10:07 AM

Please stop being tiresome, people. She isn't going to accept the money, and the fur issue will get lots of free publicity. Try using your brains every now and then before you start throwing stones at PETA.

Posted by: Spay and neuter immediately, please | March 27, 2008 11:31 AM

It's worth keeping in mind that if Aretha accepts this offer, the resulting national publicity, the multiple media stories that will discuss the fur issue, and the example that it will set for other fur-wearing celebrities and their fans will be well worth $19K, which is a fraction of the amount that a big company would pay for an ad campaign targeted at a smaller audience.

And if she doesn't accept the offer, she still gets the message loud and clear.

-Jack

Posted by: Jack | March 27, 2008 11:33 AM

Imagine the headlines if she was to take the offer. There goes her pride, her status... She's never going to accept it and Peta is aware of that. This is just a way to bring her hideous fur wearing to her face.

Posted by: Jaclyn | March 27, 2008 11:40 AM

I think Jack is right.
Either way, take the money or not, its going to make the news and PETA makes the point.

Posted by: Holly | March 27, 2008 12:32 PM

I partied with Aretha back in 1967 in Ocean City Md.
She loves to eat fried chicken dripping with grease. When she sang "Respect" she said never thought about what the words met, she sang it cus the song was offered to her and it sold and people liked it.
I think that says a lot about who she really is, sort of mindless with a wonderful voice.

Posted by: Holly | March 27, 2008 12:48 PM

It's just so predictable -- a certain type of person who feels the need to oppress the most oppressed. I'm bored with it all. People need to move on -- stop taking alleged historical grievances out upon innocent animals. Really, it just makes people like Franklin et al appear exceptionally ignorant and cruel. Seems like all IGNORANT SLAGS (ooh - sorry misogynistic(sp) - NOT (and, yes, I'm a woman)) who hate animals, wear fur. Oh, and they're usually (of course there are exceptions -- oft. drug addicts) FAT slobs, as well -- all that chicken, beef, etc.

Posted by: Barbara | March 27, 2008 01:10 PM

Sadly, the news stories I've seen on this letter have yet to incorporate any significant part of its information on how animals live and die before ending up a coat. The basic story, in the media, is far more about PETA and Franklin than it is about the animals. And that's a shame--the stunt should be a vehicle by which the media covers the animals' plight, not the story itself, right?

Posted by: Dean Ween | March 27, 2008 01:53 PM

It's a good point, Dean Wean, but to continue my analogy with a traditional advertising campaign: The goal of, for instance, a Chevy ad is to reach as wide an audience as possible with a brief, memorable, positive message about Chevy. Chevy also hopes that some people in the audience will be interested enough to visit Chevy's websites or stop by their dealership.

Similarly, a big media story about Aretha Franklin being taken to task for wearing fur will plant a simple impression in each readers' mind that fur is an ethical issue, and that fur wearers are being singled out for being unethical. A smaller percentage of those readers will be encouraged to look more deeply into what it's all about, watch the videos of fur footage, read the information on sites like FurIsDead.com, and tell their friends about what they've learned.

-Jack

Posted by: Jack | March 27, 2008 02:34 PM

re.Jacks'commetn.. the publicity.. 'well worth the 19K'.. I say it's publicity well worth not having.. it will be AWFUL..
"AF accepts 19K Bribery money to ditch fur"..
ps. seh still think it's okay for the animals to suffer a whole lifetime for their skins and fur.. and face even more horrendous death but the money was too irresistable for her own SELFISH needs.. in anycase.. she would have been homeless.. so she had no choice..
sounds terrible !! to me!
PeTA has definitely lost track on this one.. or lost the plot..
think of all those homeless animals you could house/feed.. frankly I think taht kind of moeny spent on huge advertising eg.on the Metro on billboards, etc.educating people about the horrors of the fur trade would be FARRRR more beneficial and worthwhile.. and yess.. [duhhhh!] there are still a lot of people in hte dark about the cruel background and suffeirng that goes on in the fur trade .. 19K to that selfish and heartless woman .. you may as well through that money into the ocean.. wasteful and misallocation of PeTA funds .. madness..!

Posted by: Yunef | March 27, 2008 02:48 PM

If Peta gives this celeb $19,000 for taxes, they will not get another dollar from me. It should be going to help animals, not a short lived publicity stunt.

Posted by: Craig | March 27, 2008 03:05 PM

if God forbid AF accepts this grt huge wad of amt for frankly 'doing nothing' but just to make sure that she's not seen in public wearing her furs.. and no 'grt publicity ensues'.. ie. I take it the point is that people will be PUT OFF buying fur.. educated into why and reasons NOT to buy fur.. beucaes if there is not much publicity generated..and well. it all goes 'belly flop'.. after a few newpapaper columsn.. something tells me.. a lot PeTA members will be thikning twice if not THRICE about donating to PeTA further if this is how wasteful they make use of the funds kindly generated to them.. for a selfish. has-been FUR wearing woman..
me.. something doesn't seem v. palable about this whole affair/stunt.. something.. 'immoral' about it.. not right.. ie. going to the WRONG PERSON? or wrong 'thing'..?

Posted by: LC | March 27, 2008 03:58 PM

Okay, before everyone gets bent out of shape over this deal, let's just stop and think about this for a minute. Yes, there's the letter and the offer, all over the 'net. So, perhaps it's more about embarrassing Ms. Franklin than it is about actually giving her money. Here's a former superstar, still wearing fur, who is now so poor that she needs an AR org to bail her out. I think there's a bigger message here in Peta's offer. Don't judge them too quickly.

Posted by: KalgaryKaren | March 27, 2008 04:15 PM

I see the word getting out in the news:
We have all
heard that fur is murder
http://www.pr-inside.com/peta-offers-aretha-r505369.htm

please give animals the R-E-S-P-E-C-T that they deserve by giving up fur."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010458018

Its all over the news and it is bring the attention to the suffering of animals.
Way to go Peta

Posted by: Holly | March 27, 2008 04:27 PM

Even if she had to be bribed, does it really matter? She may stop wearing the fur and get to keep her house. Like the letter says, everyone wins. I dont think anyone should down this letter.

Posted by: Skylar | March 27, 2008 04:35 PM

I believe its her business to wear what she wants and she will suffer the consequences later...There are MANY things that can be done with that money like feeding children, or AIDS, or paying for someones home who is foreclosing and help them...get a life

Posted by: Nia | March 27, 2008 05:18 PM

aretha franlkin is not worth that much.

Hell, give ME the 19k, I'll start buying furs and then stop.

Posted by: Bill | March 27, 2008 06:01 PM

I'm certain that Aretha could do a show or two at the nearest casino and make the money she needs. She most likely already has it stashed somewhere. This is ridiculous. This money could go directly to the animals, not that pig (Aretha)! We all know what kind of person she is just by the fact that she wears fur in the first place. If she takes this money from Peta, she is really a heartless $@$%. Get a job Aretha and stop whining!!

Posted by: Kelly | March 27, 2008 06:09 PM

I don't agree either with Peta wanting to help this woman with her troubles. I think she should do it out of her own conscience.

Posted by: Margarita | March 27, 2008 06:34 PM

I don't think that PETA should "bail" her out. Maybe point out that her money woes come from "torture" money she has spent over the years and that she could auction off the furs for animal charities. I doubt that she would go for that. Fur wearers are cruel, selfish people. I think PETA should use that money for something else..maybe this could be a publicity ploy to bring attention to Aretha and her cruel ways.Let it be a message to other fur-wearing losers/celebrities. Real fur is NOT attractive!

Posted by: pam | March 27, 2008 07:12 PM

iam also alittle surprised with the offer of money.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO HER IS CALLED KARMA LET IT GO

Posted by: cheryl bertram | March 27, 2008 09:35 PM

Thanks Jack for giving us the rationale behind this gesture from PeTA. I've learned from experience that PeTA tactics that seemed to me wrong-headed have had dramatic positive results.

Posted by: lynda downie | March 28, 2008 01:11 AM

I think Ms. Newkirk is right on the mark. After the negative comments Aretha threw back at Peta-something about not caring about people- it's pretty well a given that she won't accept the money. Great publicity, and a nice gesture to boot.

Posted by: Coleen | March 28, 2008 08:40 AM

I love Aretha...but it broke my heart (and my music collection) when I read of her fur-wearing...ARGH.

I'm curious to see if she accepts the offer...

Posted by: VonGiese80 | March 28, 2008 01:45 PM

It annoys the crap outta me when people tell us animal-friendly types that we don't care about people.....Uhhh....ok....if I didn't care I wouldn't urge my entire family and all my friends to move to a Vegan diet....seriously...since when is compassion limited? I didn't realize that just because I loved animals, that that means I don't love humans?...ok.

Great come-back Aretha. I loved your music...now it just annoys me because I'm reminded of how ignorant you just sounded.

Posted by: HannaBanana | March 28, 2008 05:00 PM

and what per se.. AF tentatively accepts the $$$ and after a lot of 'hoo-hah..' then simply can't bear the temptation to drape her form agian with 'secretly held and kept' dead skins and furs and lord forbids.. even momentarily forgets when she's got them on she's out in public.. what does/would PeTA do then>?>
sue????
it has to be a GENUINE heartfelt ACT of the perosn's choice.. out of kindness.. sympathy and compassion.. anything is just literally AFranklin in 'sheep's clothing' pretending to be somehting she's evidently not!.. and still has a stoney, unsypathetic and uncompassionate soul.. it will be short-lived publicity ..that is all..
but..we shall see..

Posted by: EllaC | March 28, 2008 05:53 PM

Kelly, I totally agree! LOL.

She'd probably just spend it on factory farmed meat and leather shoes anyway. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | March 28, 2008 06:35 PM

Guys, I agree that it's a waste giving Aretha Franklin the money, but I think we've got to realise that PETA is a publicity campaign, that they work more on getting the message out to the public rather than making animal shelters.

Posted by: Judi | March 29, 2008 08:27 AM

Craig-- you forgot the dry white toast!

Posted by: Kelley | March 29, 2008 09:24 AM

I just have to ask, what publicity campaign would come out of this? From what I can see, it might end up as a blip on Entertainment Tonght, but it's not as though Aretha had to agree to do a PSA or anything.

People already know who PETA is. And you'd have to be living in a cave to not know about the fur issue. The real challenge would be giving fur-wearers a reason to stop. Bribing Aretha does not sound like much motivation for other folks to stop, unless they think PETA is going to pay all of them too.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 29, 2008 07:14 PM

Aretha has brought many people joy with her music, and I'm glad PETA is offering to help her out, but PETA, I hope you're sending along a few videos with the check, and encouraging her to be a spokeswoman for animals now. Maybe she'll be more disposed to helping animals out because PETA helped her out?

Posted by: Susannah | March 30, 2008 07:49 AM

You know what's funny - she is not going to be able to afford to wear fur now anyway, she will most likely have to sell her furs if she is in dire straights.

Not only that - she is an older celebrity. I would focus on the rap stars and the movie/music stars that have a major influence over the up and coming generations. This is where we need to be focusing.

I understand the publicity that this "could" bring - IF she decides to go public with this generous offfer. But there is a real posibility that she will be too embarrassed.

There are soooo many other things that we could have done with the money.

But don't worry everyone - someday I will be working at PETA in their marketing and PR departments, so I will help them stop the foolish spending of our donations.

Posted by: Kristen Staggs | March 30, 2008 11:46 AM

The only thing I would give Aretha is constant pressure to have some integrity, compassion and respect for living beings----and DITCH THE FUR!

Posted by: carol tuskan | March 30, 2008 11:07 PM

Oh, Maya... your lack of imagination would be laughable if not so annoying. Guess what--the story has already made the news, and it didn't cost PETA a cent of the precious donations you keep reminding everyone you don't send in anyway. Just to name a few:
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/41370/aretha-franklin-bribed-by-peta
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010458018
http://www.pr-inside.com/peta-offers-aretha-r505369.htm
http://www.tmz.com/2008/03/26/peta-to-aretha-lose-the-fur-keep-your-house/
You'd be surprised how many people don't know or care that fur is an issue. Stunts like this are an incredibly efficient way to create discussion. Try thinking outside the box sometime--there's a whole world out there.

Posted by: Spay and neuter immediately, please | March 31, 2008 01:53 PM

thats all you have?

Posted by: Dr.Breen | April 1, 2008 02:19 PM

Spay and neuter, hi there!

Wow, if that's what you call news than this country is in worse shape than I thought. Get an education, much?

Posted by: Maya, CVT | April 1, 2008 03:08 PM

I am disgusted with PETA for even considering giving money to Arethra Franklin for her financial difficulties which is of her own making. If I didn't pay my tax and bills nobody would bail me out and I would not expect it either. This money could be better spent on helping animals in desperate need or feeding starving animals. This woman has had a life of splendour and if she has financial problems then perhaps she should look at what she is spending her money on instead.
She should realise that wearing fur coats is morally wrong and she should choose not to wear them and make the decision to give her fur coats to you out of empathy to the animals and not for financial rewards. Though I support PETA in most ways (such as putting an end to animal abuse, cruelty) I find some of your decisions ill advised and your money could be better spent. I donate (what I can afford) to PETA and to think that my money would be given to Arethra franklin to pay off her debt's is quite disgraceful and would make me reconsider donating money to you again.
That $19,000 could be spent on spaying/neutering animals or feeding animals or rehoming animals to improve the lives of animals that are treated so cruely by humans.

Posted by: Susan Holmes | April 2, 2008 05:34 AM

Susan, I agree. I'm afraid that PETA is a bit starstruck. They spend SO much time and money trying to get the attention of celebs. It's very disappointing.

If they really wanted to give the money to people, they could have created jobs for poachers or dog fighters (or even donated to organizations who try to rehab these people).

Helping poor, uneducated animal abusers has been proven to be a great solution to end animal abuse. Maybe they can spend the money there instead.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | April 2, 2008 11:53 AM

I think a better offer would be to provide her with a year's supply of vegan food, a membership in a health club where she could definitely stand to lose about 80 pounds and then sit her down and show her the videos of fur farms, especially those in China and Korea, and the hideous images of animals with their limbs smashed in steel-jaw traps, and make her turn over every last dead animal skin she owns.

I'd certainly use this money for a more worthy cause. Her financial woes are of her own doing--her fur-wearing is by choice, too. She is shallow and without compassion. Bribing this "has been soul queen won't accomplish anything.

She accuses animal lovers of not caring about people--give me a break!!!

Hey Aretha--where are your "soul brothers and sisters" when you need them, huh? Seems like the rich, young hip-hop stars would rather squander their ill-gotten gain selfishly on their own furs, expensive cars, and bankroll barbaric dog-fighting operations than help out a struggling sister.

Aretha, you, as a former gospel singer and familiar with the Good Book, should know that you reap what you sow!

Posted by: Susan T | April 2, 2008 12:41 PM

Bribing someone or tempting someone with cash does not change a view. It may stop her wearing the fur, but it's only for the money.

And what a waste of it PETA. Starving people in the world, of which she is not one, and the money goes on her and the few animals stopping her buying fur will save.

Her fans wont follow her, they know she doesn't think it's bad. Do you have any idea what that money could do in Africa?

Posted by: Paul | April 3, 2008 10:15 AM

I don't think it will make a difference. She's a selfish person...she'll take the money, but still won't do anything to help animal rights. Let her find the money somewhere else. You can't buy someone's heart, really PETA....you know, those that don't care, usually never change.

Posted by: MaryK | April 3, 2008 02:16 PM

It seems to me that the people who need to be educated are not and when you try to educate them they just walk away! It's a hard thing! That being said, for awhile now people have said that they want to know where their food and toys come from, all because of the Chinese recalls for lead paint and such. That got me thinking that people should know exactly where things come from and how they are made and before purchasing be shown a video of whatever product it is that they are buying! So if it's milk, they see the way the cows are treated and if it's a fur coat, then they see how that particular coat was made, starting from the beginning of course! Yes, people scream a little louder about your Elmo toy car and then we'll have ourselves a law that in the long run, you will wish you had kept your mouths shut!
C'mon! we need a law to make people aware of exactly what they are buying and getting for their money!

Posted by: Sailor Nova | April 11, 2008 05:51 PM

She should take the deal for the animals sake and hasn't she heard fur is so out of style....

Posted by: Amber | April 14, 2008 08:12 AM