I said yes, because I LOVE Roseanne. She’s not perfect, and I don’t always agree with her but I do think she’s one of the more important celebs to happen in my time. So I said yes. And then I found out the concept of the shoot. Ah boy Heeb… you’ve gone and done it this time. I was involved in two previous minor-ly controversial Heeb photoshoots (Bob Saget reading “Diary of Anne Frank” to two little girls for Heeb’s Kid Issue, and the Sarah Silverman’s cover shoot – a play on the myth of the fornication sheet – for the Sex issue), but to say this one tops the cake would be an understatement. Once I found out our concept, I knew this one was going to be off the richter scale.

Not only have there been non-stop comments at the Heeb site that prompted the Publisher to make a statement about the photos, the controversy actually made it to national TV when Extra had a feature about the photos

Finally, Roseanne herself stepped in to weigh in on the matter.

Who is to say whether or not a lot of people will ever entirely understand where she was coming from, or why she did the shoot. For myself, I could understand the intentions of the shoot and definitely the vibe on the shoot itself was one of serious lampooning and clowning (and no, those cookies were nowhere NEAR edible!). Much as Mel Brooks entire career was to use comedy to look at painful past events, I saw this shoot as doing the same. As someone whose own cultural history is complicated and often difficult, I admire Heeb’s stance of not shying away from topics that make us uncomfortable. All the world’s “isms” may look different but they are all – alas – still there, so, for one, am happy that there are artists still willing to look at these issues and magazines still willing to give these artists a place to be seen and heard.

EDIT: There’s a more thoughtful discussion of it on The View

Bill O’Reilly apparently discusses the shoot as well, but I won’t be watching much less embedding his comments on the matter…