The ad copy reads:

“Buying Animals Is Killing Animals. Save a Homeless Dog or Cat—Always Adopt and Never Buy.”

And in other news, the death toll at PETA shelters in 2009 was 2,301.

Ahem.

Something is fishy here. Oh, excuse me, I mean something is “sea-kitten-y” here.

AOL News reports:

In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats — 97 percent of those brought in — and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent.

The numbers are remarkable in contrast to nearby shelters. In the same town, the Norfolk City Pound euthanized 54.7 percent of its dogs and cats in 2009. In 2008, the most recent year on record, the Norfolk SPCA found homes for 86 percent of its dogs and cats and euthanized only 5.3 percent.

By its own admission, PETA isn’t even interested in finding animals homes. Why not? Because sometime between when they get picked up as strays and the time they find a loving home, they may have to live in a cage. You know, just like a PETA intern.

Oh the horror!

“Our euthanasia program has never been a secret,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations at PETA. “This is one of many, many things that we do to alleviate the suffering of animals.”

“Money can’t buy a good home, so it’s not a matter of money,” she said. “You could build the nicest shelter in the world, but if you don’t have homes for them, they’re still going to sit in a cage.”

Now, I’m not saying that animals like sitting in cages (though despite what PETA would have you believe, my dog actually loves his crate and happily goes in there of his own accord when he feels like a nap). But I have this niggling suspicion that sitting in a cage waiting to be adopted by a nice, loving human is better than, well, death.

To riff off a favorite Eddie Izzard routine:

“Loving family or death?” That’s a pretty easy question. Anyone could answer that.

“Loving family or death?”

“Eh, loving family please.”

“Very well! Give him a loving family!”

And, of course, this is where Kellan Lutz comes in. You didn’t think I was going to let him get of easy, did ya?

In his “exclusive” PETA interview (yes, the hypocrisy runs deep on this one), Kellan explains that

It’s our job to take [animals] under our wing and take care of them and give them a place to live.

There are surprisingly so many animals, so many animals in these animal shelters. It’s sad, and knowing that they get euthanized . . . and there’s a lot you can do . . . spay or neuter your pets so that doesn’t happen.

Or, you know, just stop helping PETA kill them.

It’s just a thought.

But despite all this veggie do-gooding, according to People:

In her latest Goop newsletter, she wrote: “Never have I met such warm people, heard such good music, eaten so much fried chicken. I could go on and on.” And she does go on and on with recommendations about her favorite Nashville restaurants, nightclubs and hotels. Among them: the iconic Grand Ole Opry, honky-tonk Robert’s Western World and Swett’s. [...] The city’s Southern-style cuisine has made quite the impression on Paltrow, too. Known for promoting a strict diet and regular detoxes to quickly shed pounds, she might be ruffling the feathers of her nutritionist with a newfound passion for poultry – not the grilled kind – and other local culinary staples.

“The fried chicken here is superb … crunchy and not oily on the outside and juicy on the inside,” she writes about Swett’s. At the Loveless Café, “their food is delicious, a traditional southern heart attack.”

Perhaps this is emotional eating, thanks to the being snubbed by Nicole Kidman. We already knew she liked chicken, but my, how times have changed since she went South.

Given her high praise of these kind Southern folk, perhaps Ms. Paltrow’s problem all along is that she never knew anyone nice to dine with. In Nashville, enjoyment of food and enjoyment of life and company are all wrapped up in one big greasy ball, much like a hush-puppy.

I am crying fowl (get it? easy pun FTW) because I want other evangelizing food-haters to beware.

WARNING:

Never go to the South. People are pleasant there. They drink “suh-wate tay” and Coke — always Coke, never “soda.”  They eat their steak chicken-fried, their chicken chicken-fried, their catfish fish-fried, and their pork beef-ified. You may be confused at first, but eventually you and your taste buds will come ’round.

You’ll love the food. Then you’ll talk. Then you’ll look like the idiot you always were.

So you know Kirstie Alley’s latest “I’ma gonna show you how to lose weight for realz this time” plan? Yup, it turned out to be Scientologist voodoo all along:

How does Rescue Me work?

Rescue Me is the first ever USDA certified organic weight loss product. This special formula helps curb appetite, reduce cravings, boost energy, support the metabolism of fat, and gently cleanse the body, taking the “toxic” out and putting the healthy in. Instead of losing valuable vitamins and minerals when you reduce calories, Rescue Me provides your body with high-quality organic ingredients, including nutrients, essential vitamins and minerals, natural herbs, fiber and antioxidants. When you couple the Rescue Me system with a reduced calorie diet, rich with organic ingredients and adequate exercise, you will experience the benefits in weight loss and an overall feeling of great health. Feel rejuvenated with this healthy and effective addition to your daily diet.

The $139 pills reportedly contain large doses of calcium and magnesium, both main components of the L. Ron Hubbard-approved detox program to “remove toxins” from good little Scientologists.

Alley is keeping her lawyers busy by hitting out at anyone who dares to criticize this brainless diet plan. The media “is spreading lies about me and my new business,” she says. But come on — these insanely expensive vitamins don’t even work for her, and she’s the spokeswoman. You want to talk about spreading lies?

Again, I have to ask: Why would anyone take weight-loss advice from Kirstie Alley?

So, in keeping with this week’s theme of the media’s mixed messages on body image, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least mention the absurdity of this horrifically ill-conceived campaign by Victoria’s Secret:

Not, of course, that your body looks anything like these bodies. Who cares. You should love it anyway.

But only if you put down that cookie and get your fat ass off to the gym!

This campaign doesn’t even pretend to care that 90 percent of the women viewing it look nothing like these scrawny supermodels. Nor does it seem to take into account the fact that, when attempting to hock a new line of bras that are supposed to fit all body types, it might behoove them to toss in one or two women who don’t resemble preying mantises.

Now, I could be wrong about this, but it has always been my understanding that the whole point of an ad campaign is to make the consumer feel good about going out and spending their hard-earned cash on something they probably don’t even need. Other Victoria’s Secret ads work because they’re selling women a fantasy: “Buy our underwear,” they seem to say, “and you’ll look like these hot chicks.” But this one makes the mistake of trying to be “real” by addressing the issue of body image, while attempting to keep on feeding us that same old fantasy line. And it just doesn’t work.

In fact, for me (and most other women I know) this ad only succeeds in accomplishing the following:

1. making me hate my body
2. making me switch channels or turn off the TV
3. making me vow never to buy another piece of lingerie from Victoria’s Secret

So, although I hate the phrase and can’t believe I am about to type it, this ad leaves me no choice . . .

Epic Fail, V.S.

Epic Underwear Fail.

Typically it’s the one time they dare to put a curvaceous and/or black woman on the cover (Beyoncé made it last year, for example). This year, though, it’s Gisele Bündchen, who was photographed for the image at right a mere six weeks after giving birth. The accompanying interview is, as you’d expect, all about how she kept her figure while incubating Brady spawn:

“I did kung fu up until two weeks before Benjamin was born, and yoga three days a week. I think a lot of people get pregnant and decide they can turn into garbage disposals. I was mindful about what I ate, and I gained only 30 pounds.”

Yet without a trace of irony, flip a few pages back in this same issue and you’ll find this eating-disorders-are-bad article by Dutch model Kim Noorda and her ongoing struggle with anorexia:

The intake meeting with the nutritionist [at Renfrew, a New York City eating-disorder clinic] took place today. She weighed me, calculated my BMI, and made a weight-gaining plan for the four weeks: one pound per week. This is standard procedure for the center for everyone who weighs less than 90 percent of ideal body weight. I did not like that at all. I told her I would try to agree to that because my agents have also told me that they would like me to gain an extra five pounds. She told me that five pounds is not that much, and probably no one would even see it. I told her that people in the fashion industry see every gram of fat.

It’s no surprise that every young model feels this way when the industry’s highest-paid catwalker tells the world that even pregnancy is no excuse to eat what you want. Shame on Vogue for the mixed message.

These new Miley Cyrus quotes barely need the requisite hypocritical context from me:

“I was kind of, like, tired of telling everyone what I’m doing,” Cyrus told Movieline. “I hate when I read things and celebrities are complaining like, ‘I have no personal life.’ I’m like, well that’s because you write everything that you’re doing.” …

“I’m telling kids, don’t go on the internet, it’s dangerous, it’s not fun, it wastes your life, and you should be outside playing sports or something.”

Love that she is telling all this to Movieline.com. Not a print publication, you idiot.

Also, lame home videos on YouTube count as the internet. Just thought her hamster brain might require the clarification.

Or it could have had something to with his fortitude in the face of a 19-month prison sentence/the wrath of animal rights activists/rehabilitating his image/personal finance problems … all so he could make his brave return to football.

But no matter what trumped-up reason Vick’s teammates came up with for nominating #7 for the Ed Block Award for Courage, this is about as hypocritical as it gets.

According to the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation Website, the award is designed to honor

…those National Football League players who exemplify commitments to the principles of sportsmanship and courage. Recipients are selected by their teammates for team effort, as well as individual performance.

The Ed Block Courage Award recipient symbolizes professionalism, great strength and dedication. He is also a community role model … He becomes an Ambassador of Courage for victims of abuse, violence and neglect.

After this year, I think the Ed Block folks may want to consider adding “human” to that last sentence.

I’ll spare you the gruesome details, but I think it’s safe to say that what Vick did to his dogs not only qualifies as “abuse, violence, and neglect,” but was also extremely cowardly. Not to mention that in many cases, violence toward animals is often the first sign of a violent pathology that can easily expand to include human victims.

Now I am not one of those crazy people who think Vick should continue paying for his transgressions for the rest of his life. He served his time. He did some apologizing, a little groveling, and a decent amount of (court-ordered) community service.

But I am also pretty sure that none of the above makes him a shoe-in for an award designed to celebrate courage. Just like animal abusers, many drug dealers, thieves, and maybe even murderers can all probably be rehabilitated. But does that mean we should celebrate the bravery of these criminals in “enduring the hardships” they brought on themselves?

Probably not.

But then again, we live in a world in which a prestigious university invites a corrupt politician to lecture about ethics, and Madonna is named an expert on marriage. So taken in that context, Vick getting an award for courage is probably not as surprising as it should be, but still, in my opinion, disgusting.

Have you seen them? They are kinda repulsive and weird. And her whole “I forgot I wasn’t wearing pants” excuse falls on very, very deaf ears.

Bottom line: I admit they creep me out, but it is Meghan McCain who’s calling her out…..

The Meghan McCain who posted this picture on her twitter page in October.

The Meghan McCain who titled her upcoming book “Dirty, Sexy, Politics: A True Story“.

Good thing Meghan only said it was “possibly the most tasteless thing” she’d ever seen. Absolute statements are soooo damning.

Sorry Andy Warhol for bringing you into this–backwards. And oh yeah, sorry to Rielle’s daughter Quinn who is in for a lifetime of hurt.

Winslet in January 2009:

“You have to work at a marriage. The best things always involve some effort.

“We aim to have two date nights a week, but always end up doing one.

“I don’t dress up or anything, we just have a nice meal somewhere, share a bottle of wine and talk.

“Sometimes it’s just about getting out of the house. We do loads of lovely meals with the kids, but every now and again you need to get out of the house together, go and be a couple, have a laugh.”

Mendes in January 2009:

“I think that with any interesting art there is always some kind of identification to be had. We are very happy, but obviously there is a cathartic aspect of making a movie about a bad marriage. Put it this way: the last thing you want to do when making a fight film is to go home and have a fight. So here is the opportunity for getting it out without having to live it. I would say that aspect of the production was actually very healthy.”

Winslet and Mendes in March 2010 after seven years of marriage:

“Kate and Sam are saddened to announce that they separated earlier this year,” their lawyers say in a statement. “The split is entirely amicable and is by mutual agreement. Both parties are fully committed to the future joint parenting of their children.”

Oops. Well at least now they’re both qualified to appear on The Marriage Ref.

That being said, this just isn’t going to work for me.

Fox News reports:

A cell phone application that will help illegal immigrants find water and key landmarks as they cross into the United States is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and an irresponsible use of technology, critics say.

The Transborder Immigrant Tool (TBT), the brainchild of three faculty members at the University of California-San Diego and a colleague at the University of Michigan, is a software application that can be installed into a GPS-enabled cell phone. In addition to helping immigrants locate water and landmarks, it also could alert them to Border Patrol checkpoints. And to make the trek a little less arduous, it also plays recorded poetry.

Now, I get that there are a lot of fun ways to waste taxpayer dollars. And with the stimulus bill freeing up even more cash for crazies, this kind of thing was probably inevitable. But while I can’t really see the point in doing studies on the effects of cocaine on monkeys, or even squirrel sex, I can at least say with some degree of confidence that the U.S. government isn’t currently waging any large-scale battles to prevent monkeys from using cocaine or squirrels from having sex.

This little TBT app on the other hand? This has to rank up there amongst the all time worst uses of government money — ever. Call me naive if you like, but I sure would like to think that there is someone on the “who should we give government grant money to” committee that would be looking out for, oh I don’t know, people using taxpayer dollars to develop a way to waste even more taxpayer dollars. But maybe that’s just me.

In 2005, a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated that illegal immigrants cost Californians a whopping $10.5 billion per year. And by helping illegals find safe routes, shelter, food, water, and friendly sympathizers, this little app is bound to cost the good citizens of the Golden State a great deal more than whatever UCSD is paying Ricardo Dominguez, the TBT’s creator.

Now, I don’t like to think of myself as a heartless person. Clearly I don’t like the idea of innocent men, women, and children meeting an untimely end in the bleak landscape of the Sonoran Desert. But do we really need to go out of our way to make it easier for people to illegally cross the border? I mean, with somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S., it hardly seems like they need assistance getting in here.

That being said,  I love that they threw in the recorded poetry. I mean, can you come up with a better symbol for liberal waste than a cell phone app that helps illegal immigrants make it safely across the border while singing “Kumbaya”? I thought not. Seriously, it’s just freakin’ beautiful.

But it does beg the question of just whose poetry they’ve got in there. (Forgive the English major’s curiosity.) Do you think they chose an “open road” theme courtesy of Whitman?

AFOOT and light-hearted I take to the open road,
Healthy, free, the world before me,
The long brown path before me leading wherever I choose.

Or perhaps a desert theme, courtesy of Stephen Crane?

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter – bitter”, he answered,
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”

‘Cause that would be awesome.