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