Jump to content

Pam Anderson says remove bust of chicken breast king


RonJonSurfer

Recommended Posts

OK, so it was a tacky and poorly thought out headline, so sue me (No not you Pam, you sue Tommy for something...)

Pamela Anderson Takes Aim at KFC By ROGER ALFORD, Associated Press Writer

FRANKFORT, Ky. - Pamela Anderson is leading a charge to remove a bust of KFC founder Colonel Harland Sanders from the state Capitol.

The actress called the Kentucky native's likeness "a monument to cruelty" to chickens in a statement issued by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal rights group.

The statement did little to ruffle feathers in Gov. Ernie Fletcher's office.

"Colonel Sanders was one of Kentucky's most distinguished citizens, a great entrepreneur and a fine charitable man of faith, and he certainly has a place in Kentucky history. We believe he warrants appropriate recognition as such," Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker said.

Anderson has been involved in a campaign to raise awareness of conditions in processing plants that supply poultry to the Louisville-based chicken chain.

In a letter to Fletcher, Anderson detailed alleged abuses of chickens by KFC suppliers. Among her claims, she said workers in a slaughterhouse in West Virginia have been filmed tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco in their eyes, spray-painting their faces and slamming them on the ground.

KFC spokeswoman Laurie Schalow called the move to oust the colonel "just another misguided publicity stunt by PETA in their attempt to create a vegan society."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too ! Perhaps the Chickens at these processing plants have been declared " enemy non-combatants" , so anything goes !

Spitting tobacco in their eyes !?! :confused: :laughing: Those fiends ! :laughing: :laughing: I guess that's even worse than turning them into food . I hope Pam and her California pals don't hear this , but I've even heard they force an unlucky few to smoke cigarettes before they do them in .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, from what I've heard, Pam is a pretty strong supporter of PETA, and against animal cruelty in general.

yes, that's true. i've read articles and interviews with her where she talks about her involvement with PETA. as far as i know she is consistent in her views and actions. and on a personal level, i disagree with the skinning of live animals for pelts and with the inhumane treatment of animals kept in cages but i still eat meat and wear leather shoes. i think pam is an easy target but she still deserves a little respect for her hard work in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect her views, but she has been hypocritical in them....silicone breast implants, tattoo ink, hair dye and makeup have all been tested on animals. If she got her implants out, stopped dyeing her hair and wore no makeup, I could probably take her more seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PETA News Archive

September 11, 2000

PAMELA ANDERSON MAKES VEGAS DEBUT AS "VENUS"

Las Vegas, Nev. -- Holding court beside a banner reading, Have a Heart for Animals, "Venus" (a.k.a. V.I.P. star Pamela Anderson Lee) will unveil her new cruelty-free "Pamela" cosmetics line this weekend, inviting fans of all ages to "kiss and make up":

Pamela, who will make her entrance on an ornate throne carried by Roman centurians, is appearing at Caesars to sell and sign her new heart-shaped makeup kits, some proceeds of which will go to PETA.

Making her cosmetics line cruelty-free was a top priority for Pamela, who graces the cover of PETA's Shopping Guide for Caring Consumers, a booklet listing companies that do not test products on animals. Each makeup kit sold on Saturday will come with a free copy of the guide.

"If you're still using cosmetics tested on animals, it's time for a makeover," says Pamela.

Priced at $49.99, each heart-shaped tote contains the previously secret ingredients to Pamela's look: Sheer Heaven and Pink Angel Lip Colors, Baby's Breath Cheek Gel, Sequin Glitter Eye Pencil, Backlash Eyelash Goo, and Pamela Pink Nail Paint.

And from the other side of the fence...

Pity poor Pamela Anderson. When the bubble-headed bleach-blonde Baywatch babe appears on camera, her physical appearance is an ample substitute for an intelligent message. But in print, with nothing but words to support her, Pam's assets fall flat. Annoyed that NASCAR star Dale Earnhardt Jr. has decided to lend his name and likeness to a fried-chicken restaurant chain, Pam went on the attack today with nothing in her corner but words -- and the letterhead of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "When you take a multimillion-dollar endorsement from a company," she wrote Earnhardt (in a letter released to the media), "you must also take some responsibility for the company's practices." We could make the same point -- and a few others -- about Pammy's relationship with PETA. Anderson's Hollywood handlers might want to advise her that hooking up with a group that funds violent extremists, consistently opposes life-saving medical research, and cavalierly traumatizes millions of children might not be as good a career move as she thinks.

As it happens, Anderson's not exactly the world's most consistent animal-rights devotee. She has fronted PETA's anti-leather campaign for years, but sported a chest-to-toe leather outfit (in the film Barb Wire) when a paycheck was at stake. Last year she bragged to the Alameda (CA) Times-Star about her animal-rights campaigning and "the difference I've made with animal testing." Yet she headlined a 2002 fundraising event for the American Liver Foundation, even though it funds and conducts research using animals (PETA even complains about it). Pam, you see, has Hepatitis C, a devastating liver disease. Apparently she supports animal testing for her own disease, but everyone else is out of luck.

Last year Winnipeg Free Press columnist Tom Oleson saw an advertisement featuring the PETA pinup, and put the whole phenomenon in its proper perspective:

Pamela Anderson is not someone whose message should be ignored any more than my French poodle's opinion should be ignored, especially when Pam delivers it wearing a lettuce-leaf bikini ... I am not sure where she stands on the war against Iraq -- although I suspect she would probably be against it, what with the threat that it poses to cows and pigs and sheep and chickens.

At present, of course, it's the chickens that concern Pam. Last year she complained that modern birds are "so top-heavy that they can barely walk." The irony thickens: Anderson's own breast implants have left her artificially top-heavy as well. And the silicone gel used in her augmentation, as well as the anesthesia used during the operation, were both tested on animals.

Pamela Anderson is by no means the only hypocritical celebrity cavorting in a PETA T-shirt. In March, pop star Pink told MTV: "I'm a proud member of PETA and I got leather boots on my feet, you know what I'm saying?" Australian PETA-phile and supermodel Sarah Jane lists her favorite foods as "raw meat, lamb kidney, lamb curry and haggis." And countless opportunistic VIPs protest for PETA one day, and wear an AIDS ribbon the next -- forgetting PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk's words: "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

and

Many people have questioned her actual knowledge of Animal Rights Issues. In a 2005 interview with Larry King the subject came up, with King asking her what her position on testing medications and treatments on animals if it could ultimately help save the lives of people. In response she admited she didn't know they tested drugs on animals and stated "I don't know anything about that." Advocating the end to Animal drug testing is one of the prime premises of most Animal Rights groups.

Like SoulGirl, I am vehemtly against the cruel mistreatment of animals but eat certain meat and wear suede/leather. I realise leather is considered a by-product of an animal that is used as a food source, but still feel guilty wearing it. Cows are animals too.

As far as vivisection goes, many studies prove for and against the use of testing on animals for human diseases and cures - however, with so many rapists, child molesters, serial killers and psychopaths on death row, how about instead of wasting the tax payers money on keeping them warm and fed and educated, they use them for testing instead. Surely human cells are a better test case subject for human diseases?

I may sound like a bubblehead, but a small difference is some difference and if I am one person less using products tested on amimals or buying from chicken farms, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply think that groups such as PETA or whatever , need to take care and be a little choosy in having celebrity spokespersons . Simply because a celebrity signs on doesn't mean the group needs to throw them to the forefront . Pam brings alot of controversy as a celebrity and any group can taint their message with the wrong celebrity spokesperson . I'd accept her volunteering , but wouldn't want her speaking for any serious cause I was supporting .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that Pamela is putting some of her beliefs into practice with her "cruelty-free" line.

Even though I work in an industry where animal testing happens every day, animal cruelty does not. It should never be tolerated, anytime or anywhere. I don't buy KFC for other reasons (the local one is nasty and I have found hair in my food), but I love meat and I do own leather products. I also use products that have been tested on animals.

I would never terrorize anyone for their views, or do bodily harm to anyone for them. PETA does, while claiming to have respect for life. That, coupled with some of their members' ignorance is what gets me. E-A's views are based on knowledge of what really goes on, and that I can, and do, respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be honest i don't know much about PETA but there are some similar organisations that take it too far. for example i have had to warn my younger cousins to look away when walking through town because of very distressing posters used by anti-abortion groups and i completely disagree with that! so i can see why people would disagree with overly-radical groups, such as PETA could be described as. however, i still think cruelty to animals, whether via inhumane testing methods, living conditions or slaughter methods is reprehensible and i suppose if there are some people out there who will be made aware of it through the involvement of one quasi-celebrity or another than it can only be a good thing. it is annoying when celebrities are hypocritical but i like to think that at least some of them truly practice what they preach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against the use of fur and using endangered species as delicacies. I considered vegitarianism, but then figured it would be much too incovenient for everyone around me. I'm careful. I won't have shark fin soup or caviar. I WILL have chicken or lamb in moderate amounts. I have a leather bag and a pair of leather shoes and I try to make sure my cosmetics have a not-tested-on-animals assurance. I'm absolutely against fur... I find that even more inhumane than cruelty suffered by animals killed for food because fur isn't an essential, it's a luxury.

And Jennifer Lopez should get the hypocrite award. She was a spokesperson for PETA for a while till they kicked her out because of her rather obviously large fur collection. I like her even less knowing that she became a part of an apparently well-meaning organisation perhaps only for publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as vivisection goes, many studies prove for and against the use of testing on animals for human diseases and cures - however, with so many rapists, child molesters, serial killers and psychopaths on death row, how about instead of wasting the tax payers money on keeping them warm and fed and educated, they use them for testing instead. Surely human cells are a better test case subject for human diseases?

Hey, what a great idea!!!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

"With a bust in the balance, Kentucky's governor is siding with Colonel Sanders over Pamela Anderson.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher wrote the "Stacked" actress to say a bust of the KFC founder will stay in the Kentucky Capitol, despite Anderson's claim that Sanders is a symbol of cruelty to chickens.

"Colonel Sanders remains a Kentucky icon," Fletcher wrote last week. "His success story has been an inspiration to many. The industry he began has employed hundreds of thousands of workers over the years. His business and his legacy have been good for Kentucky."

Anderson has been involved in a public relations campaign with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to raise awareness of what she calls abuse of chickens in processing plants that supply poultry to the Louisville-based chicken chain.

She responded to the governor's decision in a letter Tuesday, saying Sanders' chief legacy is a company "that mutilates God's creatures."

In her letters to Fletcher, the 38-year-old actress has detailed alleged abuses of chickens by KFC suppliers. Among her claims, she said workers in a slaughterhouse in West Virginia have been filmed tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco in their eyes and boiling the chickens alive in tanks of scalding water.

KFC has called Anderson's attack on Sanders a misguided publicity stunt.

Fletcher was courteous in his letter, thanking Anderson for her comments. "I hope you will feel free to contact me any time an issue is important to you," he wrote.

The white-bearded, bolo-tied Harland Sanders, who died in 1980 at age 90, began the Kentucky Fried Chicken empire more than six decades ago from his own kitchen in rural Corbin, serving a few hungry travelers who stopped in his service station. Now, KFC restaurants serve more than a billion chicken dinners a year around the world."

------------------------------------------------

Mutilate God's creatures? If you're going to bring God into it, what about the theory that God made man in his own image? Wouldn't unnecessary plastic surgery be considered mutilating God's creatures?

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...