PDA

View Full Version : 'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING SELF AS REPUBLICAN


bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 09:06 AM
PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed <a href="http://drudgereport.com/flash3pg.htm">how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.</a>

Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.

"Hello Drudge,

"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.

"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. 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.

"I just wanted to let you know of the fear <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050308/nytu139_1.html
">the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views
</a>

Developing...

Let the spinning begin on this one.....

the Talking Can
03-21-2005, 09:21 AM
#2134566543223 on the list of non-issues...everything going on in the world and THIS is what outrages you?

amazing.....

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 09:23 AM
#2134566543223 on the list of non-issues...everything going on in the world and THIS is what outrages you?

amazing.....


No this doesn't totally outrage me at all, but a little bit. I find it interesting that this would take place. I thought the dems were supposed to inclusive of others ideas and not hold the differences against anyone.

HC_Chief
03-21-2005, 09:57 AM
No this doesn't totally outrage me at all, but a little bit. I find it interesting that this would take place. I thought the dems were supposed to inclusive of others ideas and not hold the differences against anyone.

They are tolerant and inclusive... as long as you agree with them. :D

baaaaaaaaa

trndobrd
03-21-2005, 10:07 AM
Playboy enterprises has long been a supporter of Dems and, if one were to ever read an article in one of their publications, anti-Republican.

No problem there. It's a free country and business can hire and fire who they like, similarly people can take or quit jobs as they choose.

beavis
03-21-2005, 10:15 AM
#2134566543223 on the list of non-issues...everything going on in the world and THIS is what outrages you?

amazing.....
I hear that Gannon story is blowing up anyday now.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 10:25 AM
Playboy enterprises has long been a supporter of Dems and, if one were to ever read an article in one of their publications, anti-Republican.

No problem there. It's a free country and business can hire and fire who they like, similarly people can take or quit jobs as they choose.


But business' can't hire and fire at their whim! There have been lots of people that have been fired for age and there certainly have been people that haven't been hired because of the ethnicity, sex, religious preference, sexual preference and ect.......

trndobrd
03-21-2005, 10:34 AM
But business' can't hire and fire at their whim! There have been lots of people that have been fired for age and there certainly have been people that haven't been hired because of the ethnicity, sex, religious preference, sexual preference and ect.......


So you are suggesting that society would benefit from yet another restriction on the ability of business owners to hire and fire people? "He fired me because I'm a Democrat!" would be added to the already lengthy list of restrictions?

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 10:43 AM
So you are suggesting that society would benefit from yet another restriction on the ability of business owners to hire and fire people? "He fired me because I'm a Democrat!" would be added to the already lengthy list of restrictions?

Not at all, I am just trying to provoke discussion and the irony of the events in question.


I am saying that it shouldn't be a determining factor at all. One should be judged on performance, not any thing else....

BIG_DADDY
03-21-2005, 10:45 AM
#2134566543223 on the list of non-issues...everything going on in the world and THIS is what outrages you?

amazing.....

I think somebody should fire your ass for being a socialist. Then again who would we have left to stuff cans full of fruit? No Republican would be doing that job unless maybe they were like 14 and trying to save up enough cash for a car when they turn 16.

Taco John
03-21-2005, 10:51 AM
I think you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this woman got fired because she's a Republican.

trndobrd
03-21-2005, 10:53 AM
Not at all, I am just trying to provoke discussion and the irony of the events in question.


I am saying that it shouldn't be a determining factor at all. One should be judged on performance, not any thing else....


Performance in what regard? Merely in editing pictures of naked men or also in perpetuating the corporate goals. She may have been the best naked man picture editor out there, but if she is working against the corporate good then it is reasonable that she be fired.

I am assuming that the "corporate good" for Playboy Enterprises (i.e. the perpetuation of the "Playboy Lifestyle") would be near the precise opposite of conservative Republican ideals.

In a slightly different context, such as my political consulting work, it would be even more of a problematic where I prohibited from terminating someone for their political affiliation.

Bowser
03-21-2005, 12:33 PM
I think you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this woman got fired because she's a Republican.

Kind of what I thought.

Radar Chief
03-21-2005, 12:37 PM
I think you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this woman got fired because she's a Republican.

Iím just shocked the Play Girl editor-in-chief is a woman. Iíd assumed it was some gay dude.

Bowser
03-21-2005, 12:50 PM
Iím just shocked the Play Girl editor-in-chief is a woman. Iíd assumed it was some gay dude.

Kind of what I thought.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 01:09 PM
Performance in what regard? Merely in editing pictures of naked men or also in perpetuating the corporate goals. She may have been the best naked man picture editor out there, but if she is working against the corporate good then it is reasonable that she be fired.


I am sure that there could be performance goals for editing and layout ect.... How could it be determined that her being a conservative would be working against the corporate good? I would think she would have more of an issue from the conservative side because of the contradiction of working where she did and the 'family values' that most conservatives seem to want to stand for, but not always are successful.

I am assuming that the "corporate good" for Playboy Enterprises (i.e. the perpetuation of the "Playboy Lifestyle") would be near the precise opposite of conservative Republican ideals.

But that still doesn't explain why she should be fired for her political affiliation, does it? Do you want to use this standard for other institutions? How would that adversely impact business in the US? Can't an employee separate some personal beliefs from the beliefs of the business one works for? I would dare say that there aren't any employees that are 100% happy with the way the company that they work for are handling business.

In a slightly different context, such as my political consulting work, it would be even more of a problematic where I prohibited from terminating someone for their political affiliation.

I would agree with the previous statement, but would you agree also, Wouldn't it be expected that if you are working for a political affiliation that you would agree with the majority of the planks of that party?

CosmicPal
03-21-2005, 01:21 PM
Well, I geuss I'll have to now scratch off posing for Playgirl as one of those fun things to do before I die.

DenverChief
03-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Iím just shocked the Play Girl editor-in-chief is a woman. Iíd assumed it was some gay dude.


So I dress like a woman WTF are you getting at?

Radar Chief
03-22-2005, 06:19 AM
So I dress like a woman WTF are you getting at?

ROFL

trndobrd
03-22-2005, 09:46 AM
I am sure that there could be performance goals for editing and layout ect.... How could it be determined that her being a conservative would be working against the corporate good? I would think she would have more of an issue from the conservative side because of the contradiction of working where she did and the 'family values' that most conservatives seem to want to stand for, but not always are successful.


But that still doesn't explain why she should be fired for her political affiliation, does it? Do you want to use this standard for other institutions? How would that adversely impact business in the US? Can't an employee separate some personal beliefs from the beliefs of the business one works for? I would dare say that there aren't any employees that are 100% happy with the way the company that they work for are handling business.



I would agree with the previous statement, but would you agree also, Wouldn't it be expected that if you are working for a political affiliation that you would agree with the majority of the planks of that party?

I would agree that there are employees that are not 100% satisfied with the way their employer runs their business. There are some that are probably dissatified with the policitcal parties/candidates the company backs. Those employees are free to seek employment elsewhere. Why wouldn't it be the same for a company to terminate the employment of someone who supports parties/candidates not in keeping with their corporate goals.

The planks of a party have little to do with hiring or firing someone. If I were to find a bumpersticker on an employee's car from a candidate/party opposing the candidate who has hired me as a consulting, that employee will be terminated.

bkkcoh
03-22-2005, 10:07 AM
I would agree that there are employees that are not 100% satisfied with the way their employer runs their business. There are some that are probably dissatified with the policitcal parties/candidates the company backs. Those employees are free to seek employment elsewhere. Why wouldn't it be the same for a company to terminate the employment of someone who supports parties/candidates not in keeping with their corporate goals.

Isn't that a form of disrimination? I thought discrimination in any form was a bad thing. But some discrimination isn't too bad?


The planks of a party have little to do with hiring or firing someone. If I were to find a bumpersticker on an employee's car from a candidate/party opposing the candidate who has hired me as a consulting, that employee will be terminated.


The original comment was made pertaining to political consulting, I would think that would eliminate someone from working with a group that was generally opposed to one's own beliefs. I some how don't think a support of Bush would truly want to work for the Kerry campaign or vice-versa.

jettio
03-22-2005, 07:22 PM
Iím just shocked the Play Girl editor-in-chief is a woman. Iíd assumed it was some gay dude.

:LOL: :clap:

jettio
03-22-2005, 07:27 PM
PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed <a href="http://drudgereport.com/flash3pg.htm">how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.</a>

Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.

"Hello Drudge,

"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.

"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. 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.

"I just wanted to let you know of the fear <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050308/nytu139_1.html
">the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views
</a>

Developing...

Let the spinning begin on this one.....


Now that she has been kicked out of the Playboy royalty, she is going to have to earn her living like a plebe, maybe she could have a skin-mag featuring all of the needle-dicks that read Drudge.

KCWolfman
03-22-2005, 07:29 PM
Now that she has been kicked out of the Playboy royalty, she is going to have to earn her living like a plebe, maybe she could have a skin-mag featuring all of the needle-dicks that read Drudge.
Or the ladies whose testicles have retracted on airamericaradio.com.

DanT
03-22-2005, 08:02 PM
"Hello Drudge,

"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.

"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. 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.



From www.dictionary.com,

dis∑in∑ter∑est ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-ntr-st, -ntrst)
n.
Freedom from selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality.
Lack of interest; indifference.

tr.v.
To divest of interest.

Source: The American Heritageģ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


disinterest

n : tolerance attributable to a lack of involvement [syn: neutrality]


Source: WordNet ģ 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

DanT
03-22-2005, 08:03 PM
Some editor-in-chief.

DanT
03-22-2005, 08:07 PM
Disinterest, penultimate and whom are good words for the ignorant to avoid using if they want to go undetected.

jettio
03-22-2005, 10:34 PM
Or the ladies whose testicles have retracted on airamericaradio.com.

Have a bit of a hermaphrodite fetish do ya'?

BIG_DADDY
03-22-2005, 10:40 PM
Now that she has been kicked out of the Playboy royalty, she is going to have to earn her living like a plebe, maybe she could have a skin-mag featuring all of the needle-dicks that read Drudge.

Maybe, and then maybe again she can get your dream job editing Blue Boy.

jettio
03-22-2005, 11:21 PM
Maybe, and then maybe again she can get your dream job editing Blue Boy.

I don't know that title, and I think you should express your satisfaction to the real editor.

Maybe in your new sig line:

More Gun Legislation - No Thanks
Legalize Discrimination (Affirmative Action) - No Thanks
Increase Taxes - No Thanks
More Social Programs - No Thanks

More Blue Boy- Yes Please

Valiant
03-23-2005, 12:05 AM
so republicans are about family values and dems are not... Boy, glad that is settled....

Seriously though you would fire somebody because they voted another way... Just because you believe in republican/democrat does not mean you believe 100% in what they do... Seriously you have to be stupid to fire somebody for voting republican or democrat... Sure make fun of them, but to fire them is bullshit, and hopefully the lady gets rich off of it... If a buisness is stupid enough to fire you for it, you should be entitled to **** them out of money...

trndobrd
03-24-2005, 01:32 AM
Isn't that a form of disrimination? I thought discrimination in any form was a bad thing. But some discrimination isn't too bad?




The original comment was made pertaining to political consulting, I would think that would eliminate someone from working with a group that was generally opposed to one's own beliefs. I some how don't think a support of Bush would truly want to work for the Kerry campaign or vice-versa.


Why would you think that? Since when does everyone has to be equal? I'm not going to hire someone to work at the front desk that can't write and smells awful. Why do people have to interpret the "pursuit of happiness" should come at the expense of employers.

Yes, it's very common to have people take any job they can find at the time. Although I can tell them in the interview that my firm works for conservative candidates, I've had people take the job just to get a job. When they pull into the parking lot with a John Kerry bumpersticker, they get fired.

Fortunately, political affiliation hasn't become subject to Equal Opportunity guidelines...yet.

penchief
03-24-2005, 05:44 AM
Sounds like she has grounds for a lawsuit if she has been discriminated against. Otherwise, it sounds like more conservative whining about the "big bad oppressive libbies."

What country are you living in?

KCWolfman
03-24-2005, 06:30 AM
Have a bit of a hermaphrodite fetish do ya'?
Na, I don't listen to air america and Rosie O'Donnell just doesn't do it for me.

KCWolfman
03-24-2005, 06:30 AM
Sounds like she has grounds for a lawsuit if she has been discriminated against. Otherwise, it sounds like more conservative whining about the "big bad oppressive libbies."

What country are you living in?
Whew, that is the worst stench of hypocrisy I have smelled on this board in a long long time.

bkkcoh
03-24-2005, 07:23 AM
Why would you think that? Since when does everyone has to be equal? I'm not going to hire someone to work at the front desk that can't write and smells awful. Why do people have to interpret the "pursuit of happiness" should come at the expense of employers.

That is a totally different argument that I am not making. I am not sure as to where you got 'pursuit of happiness' into this arugment. I think most people would say that equal opportunity is the main thing, not equal outcomes. Because that gets into quotas, but that is a different argument.


Yes, it's very common to have people take any job they can find at the time. Although I can tell them in the interview that my firm works for conservative candidates, I've had people take the job just to get a job. When they pull into the parking lot with a John Kerry bumpersticker, they get fired.
I could see where you wouldn't want someone who was conservative working for a democrat candidate, or vice-versa, because of not being able to get 100% for the cause out of the person. But how does that impact the editors job being a conservative? I don't see the connection in this instance. I am not trying to paint a broad brush over everything, I think it is just wrong in this instance. Her job performance wouldn't be effected by her political views. As I said before, I would think conservatives would view her more harshly then the liberals would.


Fortunately, political affiliation hasn't become subject to Equal Opportunity guidelines...yet.
So it is ok to be fired from a non-political job for having a political affiliation different of the majority of the company? I would say that is :BS:

trndobrd
03-24-2005, 08:54 AM
That is a totally different argument that I am not making. I am not sure as to where you got 'pursuit of happiness' into this arugment. I think most people would say that equal opportunity is the main thing, not equal outcomes. Because that gets into quotas, but that is a different argument.

What argument ARE you making? That we need more restrictions on who business owners can and cannot fire?

Right now, a business owner can fire someone for wearing an ugly tie. An employee can quit because she doesn't like the color of carpet in the lobby. It's a two way street.



I could see where you wouldn't want someone who was conservative working for a democrat candidate, or vice-versa, because of not being able to get 100% for the cause out of the person. But how does that impact the editors job being a conservative? I don't see the connection in this instance. I am not trying to paint a broad brush over everything, I think it is just wrong in this instance. Her job performance wouldn't be effected by her political views. As I said before, I would think conservatives would view her more harshly then the liberals would.


An editor is someone who determines the editorial policy and writes editorials for a publication. While you may enjoy Playgirl for the pictures, there is, I believe, editorial content. It that content doesn't comport with the goals of Playboy enterprises (i.e. doesn't support the 'playboy lifestyle' which is anti-Republican) then they were within their rights to terminate her. I have no idea what you mean that "Conservatives would view her more harshly than liberals would."


So it is ok to be fired from a non-political job for having a political affiliation different of the majority of the company? I would say that is :BS:

So in your view, everyone that is fired from a job will now have the opportunity to cry "sexism", "racism", "religious intolerance" and now "political intolerance". Wonderful, one more straw on the back of busness owners.

bkkcoh
03-24-2005, 11:31 AM
What argument ARE you making? That we need more restrictions on who business owners can and cannot fire?

Right now, a business owner can fire someone for wearing an ugly tie. An employee can quit because she doesn't like the color of carpet in the lobby. It's a two way street.


If you are in a position to hire/fire for the company you work with and you are NOT a political position, why would one's politics come into play at all. Democrat/Republican politics typically don't have a bearing in most business' everyday operation. Do they? A business owner does have the right to fire anyone on a whim, but do they do that very often? I am pretty sure that if they did fire someone for wearing an ugly tie, that would be the last straw, not the only issue.

We all know that there are other types of politics played at the work place and that is a totally different issue.



An editor is someone who determines the editorial policy and writes editorials for a publication. While you may enjoy Playgirl for the pictures, there is, I believe, editorial content. It that content doesn't comport with the goals of Playboy enterprises (i.e. doesn't support the 'playboy lifestyle' which is anti-Republican) then they were within their rights to terminate her. I have no idea what you mean that "Conservatives would view her more harshly than liberals would."

I hadn't heard that the powers that be at Playboy/Playgirl had any concerns with the job that she had, only the fact that she came out and claimed support for the Republican party. What I meant by conservatives viewing her more harshly, is the hypocrasy of the family values, be it good or bad, and working for a company that has a reputation that Playboy/Playgirl magazine does.



So in your view, everyone that is fired from a job will now have the opportunity to cry "sexism", "racism", "religious intolerance" and now "political intolerance". Wonderful, one more straw on the back of busness owners.

No, it is not my view that everyone that is fired from a job should have legal recourse, I would only think that would be a viable option in a few cases. I think we all have seen cases in which you knew there was a specific reason, dislike, or some other reason that someone was let go or fired from a job, but a different reason was given for the termination.

Cannibal
03-24-2005, 11:50 AM
Now that she has been kicked out of the Playboy royalty, she is going to have to earn her living like a plebe, maybe she could have a skin-mag featuring all of the needle-dicks that read Drudge.

ROFL

penchief
03-25-2005, 06:56 AM
Whew, that is the worst stench of hypocrisy I have smelled on this board in a long long time.

Sarcasm? Yeah. Hypocricy? Please explain.

If you ask me, the hypocricy seems to be on the other side. Many conservatives on this board seem to use the "whiner" label any time liberals have a gripe (legitimate or not). The hypocricy seems to lie in the fact that many of them can't see the irony of their own whining.

Your criticism of me is also funny considering that I don't think I've ever seen you respond to someone directly without a diversionary counter-attack.

trndobrd
03-25-2005, 08:25 AM
If you are in a position to hire/fire for the company you work with and you are NOT a political position, why would one's politics come into play at all. Democrat/Republican politics typically don't have a bearing in most business' everyday operation. Do they? A business owner does have the right to fire anyone on a whim, but do they do that very often? I am pretty sure that if they did fire someone for wearing an ugly tie, that would be the last straw, not the only issue.

We all know that there are other types of politics played at the work place and that is a totally different issue.


I hadn't heard that the powers that be at Playboy/Playgirl had any concerns with the job that she had, only the fact that she came out and claimed support for the Republican party. What I meant by conservatives viewing her more harshly, is the hypocrasy of the family values, be it good or bad, and working for a company that has a reputation that Playboy/Playgirl magazine does.


No, it is not my view that everyone that is fired from a job should have legal recourse, I would only think that would be a viable option in a few cases. I think we all have seen cases in which you knew there was a specific reason, dislike, or some other reason that someone was let go or fired from a job, but a different reason was given for the termination.

So who cares what reason is given for the termination. If I fire someone because they have bad breath, vote for a Democrat, or wear a style of clothing I don't like, who cares if I say "you're just not working out". Your last statement is completely irrelevant.

I still haven't figured out where you are going with "conservatives viewing her more harshly," or the "hypocrasy [sp] of the family values"? OK, so members of the religious right might view her former career as anti-family. However, not all conservatives, and certainly not all Republicans, get into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy at the thought of a Playgirl magazine.

So, let's creat a new cause of action. We'll call it "politicism":

Guess what, you just fired me. I'm now suing you because your cause for firing me is because I'm a conservative Republican. Why did you do that? (I would like punitive damages, too!) Sure, you told me I was terminated because I often show up to work drunk. But I know, and deep down so do you, that I was fired for voting Republican. Perhaps you would like to consider my settlement offer?