♪♪ "...But our minds won't really be blown

The article may well be timely and informative. The cover photo image does look like a glamour shot and I can see how people impacted by the actions he is accused of would react negatively. Photo images are very powerful. Look at the impact publishing 12 year old Trayvon had on public perception.

I haven't bought, or read the magazine in decades so it won't have any impact on my purchases

 

Thousands of retailers are refusing to put it on the shelves, that should get RS attention.

 

I've read of two but two is almost thousands.

 

Those two consist of thousands of locations

 

CVS 7000 plus stores
Rite Aid 4600 plus stores
Walgreens 8000 plus stores

 

That's three. Three is MUCH closer to thousands.

 

Schematics man, schematics.

 

50% closer!

In other news, I'm sick of the push to be "ground breaking," "thought provoking," "challenging," etc... It requires zero talent, tact, or thought. Find something people don't like, and try to offend them by printing pictures and/or opinion pieces that celebrate those hated things; call them stupid or racist if they still disagree with you.

Doesn't Madonna already own the rights to that?

 

Madonna is part of the oppressor class.

 

Shit, now I have to cancel my Rolling Stone subscription.
Next it will probably be Mother Jones.

 

This reminds me of the tempest in a teapot (Warning: Pun) with the Hitler teapot fiasco. A likely unintended design flaw...

 

Nothing unintended about that RS cover.

 

If you think RS selected that cover photo unintentionally, you have been using something other than Lipton's finest when you make your tea.

 

Which do you remember,

The captured soldier who was the leader of a death squad dressed in civilian clothes, who executed police, members of their families, and civilians to strike terror into the country they were invading

or

 

I couldn't understand a single word Menino was saying when he was interviewed the other day, but that's a great letter.

 

You dork, if the enemy caught you on the battle field all they would have to do is threaten to force you to read Mother Jones and you would immediately tell them anything that they wanted to know.

 

Pray tell, what was their evil hidden commie intention by selecting that particular shot?

To intentionally get their magazines pulled out of the multitudes of pharmacies?...

Let me have your tea bag once you're finished with it.

 

To be controversial? It likely backfired. Point is they knew what they were doing and it wasn't unintentional. Like the mayor said, the victims deserve a cover, but the murderous scumbag does not.

If they want to talk about him becoming a monster, pictures of innocent people with their legs blown off would be more relevant than one of him posing like Jim Morrison.

 

So, why did they pick that particular shot (since you think you have some insight here)?
More than that, why pick him to be their cover shot at all?
Their covers normally depict musicians, bands, actors, comedians, cartoon figures, a few politicians and a few left-wing political activists.
So why this guy? Which of those categories does he fit into?

 

The level of stupidity here has reached an all time low, even for you right wing douche bags.

Seriously, are you guys so fucking stupid as to be incapable of reading the large print caption to the photo referring to the terrorist as a "monster"? That's not the way to "support" or glorify anyone, unless you are a right wing idiot.

And of course none of you morons will bother to read the article so you won't have a clue about what the author thought about the terrorist, but don't let that stop you from coming to a deluded opinion.

The reality is that if the kid looked like Richard Reid aka the Shoe Bomber ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid ) we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes, you are all that shallow.

With all due respect of course.