Just shoot me…
Monday, January 25, 2010, 7:32 PM
Wesley J. Smith
Search First Things
Secondhand Smoke
Archives
Categories
Monthly
Just shoot me…
January 25th, 2010 | 7:44 pm
Gross!
January 25th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
You got me!
How could you do that to me Wesley, now I must say three more ‘Hail Marie’ and I’m not sure that will be good enough!
Who’s laughing!
Peace
January 25th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Sorry guys, I think it’s admirable. It’s probably the only thing she’s done that is worthy of a good comment. Having given birth to three kiddos myself, I’m slightly jealous. ;)
Hubby says they forgot to say “no airbrushing” on the photo too.
January 25th, 2010 | 10:28 pm
Well, considering you cannot “erase” stretch marks or loose excess skin without surgery, I’m going to guess the way she got her look was through the magic of Photoshop/digital enhancement. :)
Kinda sad how probably ever photo you see in a magazine of a celebrity has been digitally touched up to remove any normal imperfections that humans have.
January 26th, 2010 | 6:34 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: SHS Sick Popular Culture Alert » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog – http://shar.es/aSDdu [...]
January 26th, 2010 | 8:40 am
That’s true Rawr, they think Jessica Alba’s not pretty enough to begin with.
Oh well. At least she’s getting some income (I hope?) even if it is purely from notoriety.
January 26th, 2010 | 10:07 am
safepres: What exactly do you find “gross”?
Is there something wrong with being good-looking (admittedly in the eye of the beholder) and displaying a great bod? Are you worried that the the ugly and overweight, or those less well-endowed, might be offended? PC coming from YOU? Now THAT’S a surprise.
Are you concerned because she’s the “octo-mom” thousands of poor unsuspecting young women are going to see her picture and be encouraged to have litters?
What turns you off about the cover? Just curious.
January 26th, 2010 | 11:53 am
Way to give this lady some more press Wes,
She needed it.
Now about that Abortion trial you claimed your covering… the trial started less than a week ago, yet you haven’t directly “discussed” the trial since it began.
You might be well served discussing how your community should react to the courtroom gathering of convicted lunatic abortion opponents giving their support to the domestic terrorist actions of Scott Roeder. After all this is a bioethics blog right? Or is it a law review, or a environmentalist activist blog, and now Sulman…
So if your not going to address the current events in bioethics, have a bit from the KC Star:
Abortion rights-advocates today called for federal authorities to step up their investigation into a possible conspiracy of anti-abortion violence, citing Scott Roeder’s murder trial as a key reason.
“Many of this extremist network with whom Scott Roeder clearly has been involved are here in the courtroom. We can only hope that the network will be dismantled, and until it’s dismantled, we’re waiting for the next murder.”
Spillar was referring to several anti-abortion militants and supporters of Roeder who are attending his trial…
Today is the third day of testimony in the trial. Among those attending have been Michael Bray, of Ohio, who spent four years in prison in the 1980s for a series of abortion clinic arsons and bombings; Dave Leach, of Des Moines, who once published the Army of God manual, a how-to book on abortion clinic violence; Jennifer McCoy of Wichita, who spent time in prison for two abortion clinic arsons in Virginia; Regina Dinwiddie of Kansas City, who calls Roeder a hero; and Joshua Graff, who spent three years in prison for a 1993 clinic arson in the Houston area.
————–
I ‘ll assume your familiar with some of the leading anti-abortion opponents that are possibly connected to some of the extremist groups that promote domestic terrorism against abortion providers, likely some of those in the courtroom.
You say your against these actions, so why are you and others in the “bio-ethics” community sitting silent as the trial gets underway?
You haven’t written anything about it other than to say he shouldn’t legally be allowed to represent himself or his views. That is not a bio-ethic concern, rather a legal concern. But in a forum where you say global warming is a bioethics concern I guess you can morph most any topic into a bioethics issue. How about focusing on relevant ones…
January 26th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
HW, the thing is is that they are not displaying their real bod. I think most people are just a little disappointed how shallow people can be that they would try to pass off such images as real.
I always have to roll my eyes when I see an add for cosmetic products since I know the person in them has been airbrushed in a computer program and is not actually using the products they are trying to sell. Same with weight loss stuff. Kind of deceitful.
I’d be all right with if if they’d just put a disclaimer or something stating photos have been touched up instead of trying to pass them off how celebs/models really look.
http://poponthepop.com/2009/03/25/kim-kardashian-complex-magazine-photos-photoshop-before-and-after/
January 26th, 2010 | 4:37 pm
We must have god-ordained abstinence-only education. It is completely effective and reliable. It’s the only way to prevent birthing atrocities, such as this case represents. Every single study shows it’s effective. Just ask Sarah “Death Panel” Palin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35071837/
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
You’re making a fool of yourself, David. Now you are acting like a troll.
January 26th, 2010 | 8:03 pm
Even if the photo was airbrushed (and the publisher claims it wasn’t) who cares? Magazines like Star are part of the fantasy world of three-headed babies, Elvis sightings and UFO abductions. They’re supposed to be “entertainment.” I find it hard to believe that anyone takes them any more seriously than they would, say, a garden-variety supermarket tabloid. Today it’s “octo-mom; next month it’ll be something else. Maybe the message that’s being sent is that some publishers think their readers are total fools. Maybe they’re right. Who knows?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact