I don't know if any of you feel the same way, but I for one get hopping mad when I see one of the country's most respected publications make terrible decisions on what to run in their pages.
I'm talking about the New York Times' Fashions of the Times magazine that came with the newspaper this Sunday and which, as always, was lined cover to cover with fur ads, a photo feature showing models draped in furs, and a full-page Times logo fashioned with fox fur.
The magazine is a once- or twice-a-year publication, although I am not really sure because I usually don't give it a second glance, precisely because of its fur fetish. And while I realize the magazine would be produced by a completely different set of people than those who work on the newspaper, I still would like to hold it to the same high standard that I hold the newspaper to. Which means I expect its editors to be responsive to the growing awareness of the cruelty so inherent in the creation of fur, instead of acting like they've been asleep for the last 50 years.
Fur is not just a completely unnecessary fashion accessory, it is unnecessarily cruel. You can read more about the bone-chilling practices that go into breeding, raising and killing animals for fur here. Besides, I for one cannot figure out why anyone -- leave alone a fashion magazine produced by a leading newspaper--would believe, in this day and age, that fur is fashionable. Fur looks good on the animals who were born with it. Period. People wearing it only look pathetic and gross.
Maybe the New York Times should be renaming the magazine because they certainly are not keeping up with the times. How about Fashions That Are Way Behind the Times?