According to a post on PETA Europe's blog, PETA US has offered to bail soul diva Aretha Franklin out of foreclosure if she agrees to stop wearing fur and donate her unwanted pelts to the organization. In a March 25 letter that rehashes all the gory details about the kind of torture animals undergo at the hands of fur trappers, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk promises $19,000--just about what the singer owes in back taxes--in exchange for Franklin's agreement to go fur-free. "We are rooting for you to please give animals the R-E-S-P-E-C-T they deserve by giving up fur," writes Newkirk, presumably in an attempt to show that animal rights activists can still be hip.

Personally, I don't know what to make of this situation. I'm not a big fan of PETA's vegan-or-die stance, and their controversial tactics often rub me the wrong way. But that doesn't make the fur industry any less disgusting. I'm mostly just concerned that Aretha Franklin is in danger of losing her house. It seems that while this specific spat involves the non-payment of only $162.14 in taxes on $700,000 her Detroit mansion, the $19,000 figure comprises total back property taxes and fees for all of Franklin's properties through the end of last year.

So is the Queen of Soul actually hurting for cash, or is she just too busy and important to keep her tax situation under control?

And--perhaps the most important question of all--what is PETA planning to do with Aretha Franklin's donated furs? Tape them back onto shorn animals? Douse them in red paint for use in various PETA protests? Something so bizarre I haven't even thought of it yet?