I mean no disrespect to this man or his family, but, really, the reason so many people are making a fuss about this has more to do with our obsession with celebrity than anything else.
People, falsely, believe they "know" someone because they watch him or her on TV or "follow" their careers or whatever.
When I see the list of "anonymous" names in the paper chronicling who died in Iraq during the past week--mostly very young men, some I'm sure with children, others who have barely begun to live their "adult" lives--that's when I feel sorrow.
I think a lot of people on the board just question why Irwin's death seems so important to many posters when he made a choice to put his life at risk. People die tragically everyday--and not because they chose to be where they were--yet no one mentions it.
Sueleen is making a point here about celebrity--whether intentional or not. He's taking the "fan factor" out of the equation and looking at this from a more personal, human perspective. When a man or woman dies--whether killed or from "natural causes"--we may read that they left behind children and think, "It's so sad that these kids must now grow up without their mother or father." But Steve Irwin brought two children into the world and, it seems, did not alter his behavior in an effort to consider their lives first. Is this not a reasonable expectation of parents?
Yes, his wife chose, accepted and supported him, but his children did not get to "choose." That's what your parents are supposed to do until you are old enough to do so.
Also, keep in mind that Sue is in Chicago where six children just died in a fire--that might have been prevented. He's thinking about the real victims in both incidents: children whose lives have been forever affected by the irresponsibility of adults.
"Be on your guard! Jerks on the loose!"
http://www.roches.com/television/ss83kod.html
**********
"If any relationship involves a flow chart, get out of it...FAST!"
~ Best12Bars