I just don't get all the nonsense over the Rolling Stone.
It's a cover, not an endorsement. Get over it.
My god, what a dumbed-down, image-obsessed cretin culture we
live in. Maybe Americans are upset to learn that monsters can be pretty, having
confused reality with a Disney animated feature.
Rolling Stone has done some tremendous investigative
journalism in recent years, far better than almost everything else in the
corporate media. It was Rolling Stone, for example, that exposed Gen.
McChrystal.
All the over-hyped “outrage” is about taking an unfair shot
at a magazine that publishes some honest journalism. The right wingers never
miss a trick at that.
It’s not even a poor choice for a cover, except in the sense
that it fails to respect inch-deep American levels of comprehension and irony.
It is a poor choice for a cover. The picture of his brother's corpse would be a better cover. Or how about a picture of the little boy these cretins killed.
ReplyDeleteThis jerk off is still alive. Don't you think it's a boost to his ego to get a cover?
Maybe it's not that people are too stupid to realize why they are offended by this. They know monsters can be pretty. From Ted Bundy to $ister $arah, it's an old concept. They also know monsters get off on their fame.
I don't give a damn what to happens to his ego, nor should you. He has bigger problems to worry about, and so do we all. It's a cover photo of a criminal. It’s literally nothing. This is a phony campaign to covertly attack the Rolling Stone for its honest journalism.
Delete