Next Stop: Playboy Centerfold(With a hat tip to Ala.) I noted with interest the rather HOT editor of Playgirl, Michelle Zipp (er...) having been term'd apparently for being Repubelickin'. (Sorry.)
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
Clearly this demonstrates that Republicans are not a protected category, because WE'RE THE MAJORITY! HAH! IN YOUR FACE DEMOCRATS!!
However, after my initial guilty glee over Republican dominance, I must report that my finely tuned BS indicator, set to vibrate and held between my knees, is going off most pleasurably.
See, I find it difficult to believe that a competent magazine editor would be terminated for being a Republican. "Criticism from the liberal left ensued", she states in a reputed email to The Drudge Report. Shortly after, she reports, she was fired.
Hmmm. Does this mean only the liberal left reads Playgirl? Well, if you think about it, think HARD, it does make a kind of sense.
But, I wonder if this just wasn't a convenient way to move Ms. Zipp along. That seems much more likely to me then being ousted for voting Republican.
On a completely different free associative note; speaking of BS detectors, something is just plain strange about the Schiavo case. She is just now 41, and went into this vegetative state, what 15 years ago or so? So, she had a heart attack at the age of 26? Kinda young, don't you think? If this were a made for TV movie, it would be about time for someone to consider the possibility that this heart attack was not a natural phenomenon. I haven't seen any discussion regarding the cause of the heart attack. Could this actually be a case of attempted murder? With the desire to get the job finished? Especially before anyone figures it out while she's alive?
Yeah, I know. Lifetime TV. I just wonder.
fb
Posts
6 comments:
Certainly, the media has not provided a full case history. Without such, no conclusions can be validly drawn. As to the morality of the removal of the feeding tube, I suspect, we all have our own definitions of morality. The "compassionate" are concerned about the discomforts of starvation. In light of the displayed view of the contents of her brain, it seems highly unlikely that she experiences suffering. But, of course, there remains a chance she is aware of pain. I have my doubts that providing a little nourishment would alleviate this. In my opinion,letting nature take its course, is the kindest approach. I am inclined to regard those,who would reinsert the tube, as bordering on selfish, or masochistic.
I say just OD her on morphine and be done with it, for God's sake.
FYI...
"Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder."
Maybe this could turn into something positive, like a campaign against eating disroders. Or maybe not...
Interesting for you to comment on the eating disorders. I was thinking of a post about how her parents sue Kate Moss, or maybe Cosmopolitan, or Victoria Secret.
fb
This is an exerpt from “Ignorant and Meaningless Soundbites”; I’m facinated by the Schiavo situation, so I thought I’d make some noise here about it as well:
I have spent some time thinking about this extraordinary case. I only know what’s on the news, so some of what I know is sure to be wrong. But I have some ideas based on two main things:
#1 Terri was pretty much instantly afflicted with this, there was no warning. So she didn’t spend time talking about her possible fate while facing the reality of it (like someone diagnosed with cancer might). So to know what Terri wants, we have to go by things she may have said to friends or family, and hope those are still her wishes.
#2 Her disability wasn’t killing her. She would starve to death, but the brain damage wasn’t getting worse, and her other organs were OK. One of my neighbors had a parent at home with one of these feeding tubes as a maintenance issue due to some kind of surgery; this is simple technology, not “life support”. This person had hope of recovery, I don’t know if Terri did or not.
Faced with 10 or 15 years of this, what would any of us do? What is morally right? Is it OK if the sufferer decides for themselves their life should end? When is this sensible, and when is it suicide? No answer would satisfy everyone, even in a small group. And what should we do if “family and friends” disagree?
That is the heart of the matter to me. I find it incredible that “the courts” would support the assertion of Terri’s “husband” that she should die over her parent’s wish that she live.
Michael Schiavo has a live-in girlfriend and two kids by her. He says Terri wants to die. Her parents say she should be kept alive, that she may get better. In every case “the court” has backed Michael Schiavo, I suppose because there’s a piece of paper on file in a courthouse somewhere that says they’re married.
I don’t vilify Michael for getting on with his life. But he got on with his life! If he doesn’t have enough sense or courtesy to let Terri’s parents have a say in her fate, wouldn’t a Judge? I find it incredible that multiple Judges in multiple courts would see Michael Schiavo as having more moral authority in this situation than her parents.
I think if Michael Schiavo (or anyone else) thinks someone is better off dead because of their “quality of life” or to “end their suffering”, then he should smother them with a pillow himself and then hand himself over to the law. Maybe a jury would understand, maybe they wouldn’t. Ultimately this stuff is between you and God. My method keeps Michael and like-minded folks honest, and a deadly serious subject, well…deadly serious.
On a separate but related topic: “the system” starved/desiccated Terri to death! Good grief, the pillow to the face would be a mercy by comparison. If I had an old dog with “poor quality of life” and I deprived it of food and water to “end its suffering” the SPCA would demand I be put in jail. All the while the news folks were counting down the days, this all sounds like some kind of Nazi experiment.
I hope I haven’t committed some BLOG breach of etiquette posting essentially the same thing in two different places. If so: Pistols at dawn!
Pistols not required. Not everyone reads every comment. I suppose I had a breach of etiquette when I cross posted within a post.
Glad to see you have throttled into submission the compu-nazis at your work.
fb
Post a Comment