Here is an official statement that I received just recently from “Mike” Simons and Lee Migliara of Playgirl Magazine. Posted in it’s entirety for your viewing without comment (for now):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The following is a statement from PLAYGIRL Magazine regarding the dismissal of Michele Zipp, editor-in-chief:

New York, NY, March 21, 2005 - “For more than 30 years, the Playgirl name has been synonymous with freedom and empowerment.for women, by women, about women. Playgirl values all political affiliations and anyone on its staff is free to express those opinions.

In our decision to replace Ms. Zipp, the magazine is taking a new direction editorially and creatively. We wish only the best for Michele in her future endeavors.

Contact: “Mike” Simons/Lee Migliara

PLAYGIRL

Email: pr@playgirlmag.com

This is what I’m getting out of this statement:

1. Michele Zipp WAS fired - The statement confirms it beyond a doubt. The whole spiel regarding the magazine “taking a new direction editorially and creatively” is interesting, to say the least.
2. Even if this was just a normal decision related to a shift in “creative direction,” they are going to be in spin control mode for a while. The timing is just horrible!
3. I realize that the magazine was originally founded “for women, by women”, but I don’t think that is their only constituency. They should be more open about that.

What is the real answer here? I have no idea. I’m not unsympathetic to Playgirl Magazine’s situation. At the same time, as I mentioned, the timing is horrible.

Thanks,

David

I now know the truth about most liberals in the media. When they tell me they believe in diversity, they’re probably lying.

What they actually believe in is “selective diversity,” or “limited diversity;” meaning, diversity is only diversity if they tell you it’s diversity. And if this story as posted by Myway News and the Drudge Report is true, this is a perfect case in point.

I wonder if, perhaps, what some liberals believe is that there’s such a thing as good diversity and bad diversity. If this is true, then I’ll at least give these people credit for having their actions in-line with their beliefs.

But any media liberal, or any liberal at all, for that matter, who believes in the traditional definition of diversity, but approves of the firing of Playgirl Editor, Michele Zipp, who outed herself as a Republican earlier this month and now claims to have been fired for it, is either a liar or a hypocrite… Or both.

Today, Matt Drudge published an email message from Ms. Zipp claiming that she has been removed from her position as editor of Playgirl Magazine. Here is an excerpt of an email message to Drudge posted to Drudgereport.com:

I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, “I wouldn’t have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.”

Even if this turns out to not be true, I’m amazed at the lack of response over Ms Zipp’s claim. If this had been, for example, some conservative Wall Street guy calling a woman to say with a laugh, “I wouldn’t have hired you if I knew you were a Democrat,” what would our liberal media friends have done? Personally, I think the coverage would have made Abu Ghraib coverage, or the OJ Simpson trial coverage, pale in comparison.

And, of course, that conservative Wall Street guy would have “ties” to the Bush Administration (donated $10 to the Bush Campaign!!). It would be a scandal that would spawn dozens of headlines, news stories galore, and, ultimately, a made-for-tv movie regarding the life of our liberal heroine who was fired for making a political choice.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the accusation is being made by a woman who might still be registered as a Democrat, but who had the audacity to declare that she voted for President Bush.

Which explains why the only thing I’m currently hearing related to this story is the sound of crickets chirping. And it’s all I’m likely to hear, other than, of course, the obligatory, “anything Drudge publishes is a lie,” comments. If this is your response, then let me just mention the fact that this is exactly what Bill Clinton used to say.

It has become quite apparent to me that are some of the unwritten “Laws of Liberalism.” These laws dictate their seemingly inconsistent behaviour on issues like this one.

Here are a few off the top of my head:

1. It’s okay to be a woman in power, as long as you are a liberal.
2. It’s okay to be a minority in power, as long as you are a liberal.
3. It’s okay for federal judges to mandate social change for all Americans, unless it’s to save someone’s life.

There are many other liberal laws out there, I’m sure. Feel free to add your own.

The fact of the matter is, the party that has long boasted of it’s support for diversity, really does not. And in the face of increasing electoral losses, this attitude of only tolerating “approved diversity,” which, of course, is not really a philosophy of diversity of all, has become increasingly apparent.

If Ms. Zipp’s email and, thus, her claim, proves to be true, then it won’t just be Playgirl Magazine that has some “splaining” to do. It will be all those who are willing to look the other way when “diversity” rears it’s head in a manner other than that which you approve.

Hmmm… I think THAT is one way to define diversity. Go figure!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com