Boston Marathon Bombing

Thomas Menino, Deval Patrick Slam Rolling Stone Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Cover, Haven't Read Article

Outrage machine is outraged

|

you let the terrorists win?
Rolling Stone

The latest issue of Rolling Stone features a cover story about alleged Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or "The Bomber" as the headline on the cover declares, the story of  "how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster." Of course, there was outrage over the decision to run Tsarnaev on the cover (CVS won't be selling the issue). Naturally, Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston, and Deval Patrick, the governor Massachusetts joined in.

In a letter sent to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner sometime today, Menino blasted the magazine's decision to feature the alleged terrorist (or just terrorist, as Menino preferred) as a crass marketing-driven move, adding that,  "There may be valuable journalism behind your sensational treatment, though we can't know because almost all you released is the cover." It's unclear exactly when the mayor sent the letter out, but the cover story is online at Rolling Stone now, with an apparent post time of 11:00am ET (but the first comment  apparently only at 2:19). Patrick, too, condemned the cover, and admitted he didn't read the article, adding, via Politico: "I understand the substance of the article is not objectionable, it's apparently pretty good reporting."

But would it matter if it were objectionable to him and does it matter if Menino thinks its valuable? Though the governor and mayor have no authority in setting a free press' agenda, Patrick has no problem commenting on a cover story he hasn't read yet, while Menino can't be bothered to look for it or wait to read it before writing a letter to the editor expressing his outrage.

Rolling Stone, of course, can put whatever it damn well pleases on its cover. It's hard to understand how a cover that calls Tsarnaev a monster could be interpreted to be glowing, but the article itself (which you can read here) isn't the kind of glowing, slobbering profile the magazine usually reserves for (alleged) mass murderers, like, say, Barack Obama. Too far?

Related: one third of Americans think the First Amendment guarantees too many rights.

NEXT: Obamacare's Centralization of Date Fuels Privacy Fears

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rolling Stone, of course, can put whatever it damn well pleases on its cover. It’s hard to understand how a cover that calls Tsarnaev a monster could be interpreted to be glowing, but the article itself (which you can read here) isn’t the kind of glowing, slobbering profile the magazine usually reserves for (alleged) mass murderers, like, say, Barack Obama. Too far?

    Nice one Ed.

    As for the cover, I personally would not have gone with a vanity shot that makes him look like a cross between Che and Jim Morrison, but the overreaction by the warboner crowd makes it hard to be that upset by it.

  2. And we should care about these people’s opinions why? Are they Top. Men.

    1. Actually Boston mayor “Mumbles” Menino and Gov. Devolve Patrick are far from top men. They’re more like very mediocre men.

  3. Good job helping them out with publicity, Mass-holes.

    1. RS must be thrilled though. This is the first time anyone’s given a shit about them in 25 years.

    2. I listen to sports radio about 10-12 hours a day. They spent a good 2 hours ranting about this cover. Now that I see it, I don’t understand how they could think it was making him seem glamorous. They literally call him a monster on the cover.

  4. I guess we shouldn’t mention the Charles Manson cover.

    1. Charles Manson was songwriter and a recording artist. One of his compositions was recorded by the Beach Boys, another by GG Allin.

      Did Rolling Stone do a Jared Loughner cover? Ted Kascinski? How about Mohammed Atta?

      1. They’ve put non-musical people on their cover before.

      2. Reason did a Jared Loughner cover. It was mainly creepy, though.

        1. As creepy as the cover that was a picture of your house?

  5. Like the TV stations featuring the ‘bubble-headed, bleached-blonde’, RS probably has some idea of how to move dead trees off the newstands and thereby attract advertisers.
    That’s what the management is charged with doing; looks to me like they’re doing the job.

    1. They could start by getting rid of Wenner. Then I might read it again.

  6. I don’t understand this article’s point. Why, when discussing the perceived distastefulness of the cover, is the content of the article relevant?

    1. TexLawyer| 7.17.13 @ 8:20PM |#
      “I don’t understand this article’s point. Why, when discussing the perceived distastefulness of the cover, is the content of the article relevant?”

      Well, some of the gripes about the cover concern speculation regarding how sympathetic RS is to the man. The article might correct mistakes.

    2. Let me help you:

      Menino blasted the magazine’s decision to feature the alleged terrorist (or just terrorist, as Menino preferred) as a crass marketing-driven move, adding that, “There may be valuable journalism behind your sensational treatment, though we can’t know because almost all you released is the cover.”

    3. Surprisingly, I heard a good answer to that question this morning on the local call-in show. The reason is the cover may be artistically related to the content of the story. If you’re doing a handwringer about Good Kid Gone Bad, then you would want this cover to illustrate the point.

    4. Are you stupid? The article’s point is that government officials want to suppress the 1st Amendment yet again.

    1. I was going to post that, glad you took care of it. It’s almost to three million views, wonder if about 2.5 million were today.

  7. Judging from the cover, I can alreadly hear the sound of desperate, lonely, deranged women declaring Dzhokhar’s innocence, that his brother made him do it, and that they can love him back to health.

    Well-played, Rolling Stone. Well-played.

    1. They’ve started doing that even before he was captured.

    2. “Well-played, Rolling Stone. Well-played.”

      I bleeve SI sells an issue long about April (?) every year featuring photos of young women in clothes (well, sort of) calculated to increase the tumescence of certain portions of male anatomy.
      So, RS works the other side of the street.

      1. I don’t think, say, Squeaky Fromme ever appeared in the SI swimsuit issue though, so I don’t know how relevant the comparison is.

  8. It’s hard to understand how a cover that calls Tsarnaev a monster could be interpreted to be glowing

    No, it’s not hard to understand, Ed. Reason is the publication that coined the phrase “killer chic”, no?

    1. That would explain cop groupies…

      1. Nice, and right on both counts.

  9. Dammit. It enrages me that I actually agree with Amanda Marcotte on this issue.

    Of course, this being Marcotte, she completely misunderstands her opponents’ arguments, throws a hissy fit when criticized, and uses words like ‘duh’ and ‘babyish.’

    So I’m still provably better than her.

    1. Shorter Amanda Marcotte: “I’d suck that killer dick”

    2. who is this person and why do you keep reading it?

    3. Serious question: Is this the first time Amanda Marcotte has said something positive about a man?

      1. She briefly worked for Fluffy the Ambulance Chaser during his primary run, so I would guess that she sang his praises at some point.

        -jcr

      1. linky SF

          1. Iron Sheik, horse ebooks and Jose Canseco is all you need on twitter.

            1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT AMANDA BYNES, IRON SHEIK!

              She is America’s misunderstood sweet heart.

            2. I only have 2/3rds of the Twitter Triumvirate! I need to go follow Jose Conseco.

        1. I never read “sugarfreed.” I read “skull-fucked.”

          1. A distinction without a difference.

            1. Ther is one important distinction…

              Skull fucking indicates using one of the existing holes.

              Being ‘sugarfreed” indicates making a new one.

              1. So he’s like a bedbug then?

              2. The other important distinction is diabetes…

    4. “Making a great album isn’t enough to get you on the cover of rolling stone anymore. Blowing up kids is.”

      Karate Kid.

  10. Do you think they ever put Captain Kirk on the cover of Rolling Stone? “Starfleet’s Badboy: How James Kirk rewrote all the rules of space exploration”

    1. “How he beat the Kobayashi Maru, inside!”

    2. Shatner’s on the Top 10 worst Covers list.

        1. Don’t talk about Lucy!

  11. “How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.”

    Writing like that is fine, if you are Albert fucking Camus.
    Now Rolling Stone, is that Monsieur Meursault or Jean-Baptiste Clamence on the jacket?

  12. Well, I have already called critical Politico commenters on
    Facebook stupid fascists. I stand completely behind that and ask Jann Wenner to remember how we Memphis people in the person of Lee Baker of Moloch put him on the floor on Linden Avenue with our super-strong weed (does Delta Delight ring a bell, Jann?)and our supreme hipness. Hang in there, hippie!

    1. Do the Turing folk know you’re posting here?

      1. At first, I thought he was bizarro Rorschach…

    2. I propose that this guy’s DNA be stored for when we get around to perfecting cloning. Comments as perfect as these can’t be allowed to die.

      1. You know who I miss post-registration?

        ?

  13. Unless someone is talking about using the power of the government to censor Rolling Stone, I really don’t see why Reason is covering this. A private company offended people, and people are voicing their offense. What’s the big deal?

    I think Rolling Stone offended a lot of people with that cover, myself included. That’s their right, and it’s our right to complain or even organize a boycott of the magazine and its advertisers. So what? Why does Reason care?

    This smacks of the ‘voicing an objection is tantamount to a government enforced ban’ logic that often pervades this magazine, libertarianism, and the HnR comment brigade. I get the emotion behind that, but come on, the two are not equivalent.

    1. “This smacks of the ‘voicing an objection is tantamount to a government enforced ban’ logic that often pervades this magazine, libertarianism, and the HnR comment brigade.”

      Cite missing.

    2. the ‘voicing an objection is tantamount to a government enforced ban’ logic that often pervades … the HnR comment brigade.

      Now, *that* is funny! Good one, jasno!

    3. In case you haven’t noticed, not all of Reason’s articles are explicitly political. It’s not you’re forced to read this article or stopped from clicking on the other ones. And criticizing an argument doesn’t mean you think it constitutes a government ban.

      1. Comments like jasno’s piss me off more than the trolls. I hate the fucking whining. It’s like people haven’t figured out what a blog is.

        1. +30 quatloos

      2. *Should say like after “not” in the second sentence.

        Why does this site not have an edit button?

        1. Editing is for statists and redistributionists. Take responsibility for your mistakes or GTFO, there are no mulligans here.

          1. *Hangs head and runs off sobbing*

          2. That, that . . . did I help in some way to get you to embrace your inner alpha dude? It was my good natured ribbing and gentle chiding, wasn’t it?

            1. I don’t know, but I’ve got an overpowering urge to pen a heartfelt letter to Amanda Marcotte expressing my disgrace. It wasn’t she I othered but I feel like she suffered nonetheless.

    4. Agreed.

      1. Really? I mean, I can see why you’d agree that Reason shouldn’t cover it (although I don’t see much reason to care either way, and at this point of the day, it’s a nice post for the late night commentariat), but you seriously think he’s right in that last paragraph? That Reason and commenters here think criticizing = ban?

        1. The commenters, no. The articles? On occasion, I do get that vibe — especially if it’s people they don’t really like doing the talking.

          In general I think that the commenters are more rigorous about their libertarianism than the columnists; I like Matt Welch and Jacob Sullum (and I loved Balko to death when he was writing for Reason), but many of the others are… a bit lazy at times.

          1. I’d agree that the commentariat is overall more libertarian than the writers (excepting trolls that skew the mean, like Tony, Shriek, American, etc.), but I still don’t think any of them would equate criticism like that with a government ban (or the common response from ignorant people whose speech is criticized that their first amendment rights are being violated)

            1. I’d agree that the commentariat is overall more libertarian than the writers (excepting trolls that skew the mean, like Tony, Shriek, American, etc.), but I still don’t think any of them would equate criticism like that with a government ban

              Except possibly Chapman. I’m still almost positive that Chapman having his articles on Reason is just Gillespie’s way of trolling us though.

              1. Not sure if Chapman would equate criticism with a ban. But he probably would support a ban. I wouldn’t be surprised if your theory is correct, although Chapman isn’t a Reason employee

    5. Free speech is hard… Rolling Stones can put up any cover they want, people can call them out on it and we can call them out. Isn’t grand?

      1. them

    6. I think Rolling Stone offended a lot of people with that cover, myself included.

      The only people that could be offended by the cover are morons.

  14. I am not “offended” like this jasno dweeb and don’t give a fuck who else is. I am not giving the laws and culture of my country up to you “offended” cocksuckers. This “offended”, thus I am on the warpath with my suffragette voters bullshit is what is making America a hive of reeking vagina mucus.

    1. I see.

      1. Good.
        Personally, I’m avoiding eye contact and backing slowly toward the door.

    2. Dude, that must be some strong-ass shit.

      1. Whatever it is. we should keep him fully supplied.

    3. reeking vagina mucus

      Nice girl band name.

      1. grrl band

      2. This is why there are no..oh never mind

    4. This is the greatest comment I have ever seen.

    5. I am not giving the laws and culture of my country up to you “offended” cocksuckers.

      Who said anything about passing any laws?

      Here I thought I was going to have to do some google-fu to give you circlejerkers evidence of how you routinely equate judgement with calls for a government sponsored ban.

    1. This is a horrible story, so I probably shouldn’t make any jokes about “how can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your pesticide” or “at least it wasn’t Oktoberfest at Springfield Elementary.”

    2. Because the Indian government guarantees the purchase of staples like wheat and rice from farmers, its warehouses are overflowing with far more grain than is needed for subsidized food programs. As a result, grain sometimes ends up being stored in poor conditions for long periods of time, where it can spoil.

      1. Who would have thought a government program could have bad unintended consequences?

      2. Indian government fucks up delivery of food aid, western agribusiness blamed. News at eleven.

  15. I can’t *believe* I’m defending RS on this one – the fact that I’m defending them against a couple two-bit politicians makes it easier.

    The article (assuming it’s accurate) is very informative, and it does indeed make clear that the brothers were monsters. The focus is on Dzhokar Tsarnaev’s friends and (to an extent) family and how they – especially his friends from school – saw him as an average (for Cambridge, Mass) dude who partied, smoked weed, and only let his mask slip to his friends on a couple of occasions. Then there is the charming quote from the guy who says anti-Americanism (yes, he called it that) is common enough in Cambridge that it almost wasn’t noticed in Tsarnaev. Maybe there’s something wrong in Cambridge, though this isn’t the viewpoint of the article.

    1. But the fact remains – he’s the kind of nice-looking young man who appeals to a certain kind of woman – not only romantically but also triggering the maternal instincts. Not every villain is a Disney witch with green skin or a sinister cape-wearing cyborg, which is still kind of what we expect from our bad guys. Osama had a big nose, weird headgear, and bushy beard. There’s even a columnist who relays economic misinformation while allowing himself to be photographed holding a pet cat. This is the reassuring type of evil.

      I don’t want to sound too much like a cultural-studies prof, but a good-looking evildoer subverts our expectations. The guy *does* look like a young celebrity. Rolling Stone shoved that in our face, for whatever motive, but just because RS says it doesn’t make it false.

      1. Bernardine Dohrn used to be hot. Just look…that face. Yes, the face.

        http://notmytribe.com/tag/bernardine-dohrn

        1. Patty Hearst:

          http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p…..rstbio.htm

            1. See the top four terrorists on this list:

              http://www.smashinglists.com/n…..with-guns/

          1. Patty Hearst… Heard the burst… Of Roland’s Thompson Gun… And bought it.

        2. All I see is Mao.

      2. Evil is banal and usually born out of fear and weakness.

        1. The article suggests that this applies to our two Boston guys.

          1. I’ll probably read it at some point, because RS can put out a good article on occasion (McChrystal was one). But the political bootlicking can be hard to take.

            1. The only boots they lick are those of the Cambridge community – how could such a progressive, cool town (where people smoke weed openly!) have produced such monsters?

              1. It was a general comment on RS, but I’m not surprised they are Cambridge apologists. Cambridge is a hotbed of political stupidity and manufactured resentment, there are probably as many active Marxists there as in Berkeley.

                1. The article was interesting but I don’t know that it reveal anything that wasn’t really known before. I didn’t quite take it as defending the Cambridge culture either though

                  1. The tone seemed to me to be “how ironic that this guy in such a multicultural, progressive, open-minded week-smoking town should have gone bad! I guess you never know…”

                2. Cambridge is a hotbed of political stupidity and manufactured resentment, there are probably as many active Marxists there as in Berkeley.

                  And now you’re getting to the real source of the offensiveness. They can’t believe their own group could create and house a radical fanatic and they don’t like being reminded of it.

                  I’d argue that Massachusetts has been a hotbed of groupthink since its founding as a colony. And I’m glad they are being reminded of it, especially because it’s coming from one of their left cost outposts.

      3. He dresses like a Persian. That’s what is truly offensive about the cover.

    2. Eduard van Haalen| 7.17.13 @ 9:13PM |#
      “I can’t *believe* I’m defending RS on this one…”

      Why?
      RS management is charged with making money.
      You may hate the guy on the cover, but RS has caused no harm.

      1. Bad ideas can cause harm, like their attitude toward Obama. But this article was not fawning over a terrorist, like idiot politicians said.

        How illiterate does a politician have to be that he will criticize Rolling Stone without reading it? I can understand an illiterate pol denouncing some controversial social-science book which he doesn’t have the intelligence to read, but denouncing a Rolling Stone article without even skimming it?

        1. Eduard van Haalen| 7.17.13 @ 10:19PM |#
          “Bad ideas can cause harm,”

          OK, there is no doubt that thoughts have consequences, but the solution to bad ones is good ones.
          RS’ attitude toward Obozo is a choice made to sell paper and get ads. Much as I despise the court of Obozo, I really can’t fault a publisher for selling to the popularity as it exists.

    3. Then there is the charming quote from the guy who says anti-Americanism (yes, he called it that) is common enough in Cambridge that it almost wasn’t noticed in Tsarnaev. Maybe there’s something wrong in Cambridge

      Cambridge is exactly the kind of progressive cesspool Sarah Palin was NOT referencing when she referred to “the Real America”.

  16. I will only say this about RS. Making the cover of RS is/was a mark of having made it in music. We all looked to see who was going to be on the cover – in music. Then RS started going political with those lame Obama covers. Now this.

    So what’s RS? A hybrid magazine where people read it for the news and not the music? Reminds of the Playboy one about ‘I read it for the (whatever.’

    RS seems a little confused. If it were “me’ and this is just me, I’d sink or swim with what they’re supposed to be about – MUSIC.

    1. In an Internet age, the printed music mag can’t keep up. Outrage and politics is all they’ve got anymore.

    2. Rufus J. Firefly| 7.17.13 @ 9:16PM |#
      …”We all looked to”…
      Uh, watch that “we”. Wenner was a prick when he had offices on King St. in SF; “we” often laughed at the cover shot.

      1. Yeah, good point – sorry. Projection. In fact, I hate myself for writing that.

  17. Oh no, thanks Balko

    @radleybalko
    Family says Oklahoma deputy came to their home by mistake, then killed the family dog.
    http://www.examiner.com/articl…..family-dog

    1. Jesus Christ, what the heck IS going on in America?

      What’s going in the minds of these cops?

      Man, I totally get the anger expressed towards cops here.They beat up women, kill dogs, terrorize old people.

      I’ll never see the show Cops and S.W.A.T the same way again. Are they even still on TV?

  18. I would have photoshopped a dick in his mouth.

    1. Should have given him a white glove and a burnt fro.

    2. In a few months you won’t need photoshop for that.

  19. No, this kind of shit is disgusting. Glamorizing someone who uses has murdered and used terror to advance their goals is downright shameful.

    *straightens Mao poster*
    *irons Che t-shirt*

    1. MJGreen| 7.17.13 @ 9:43PM |#
      “No, this kind of shit is disgusting. Glamorizing someone who uses has murdered and used terror to advance their goals is downright shameful.

      *straightens Mao poster*
      *irons Che t-shirt*”

      PERFECT!

  20. Well duh. We found out today the First Amendment just goes too far. 1/3 of Americans agree!

    1. As much as this factoid concerns me, the conflict of interest of newseum ‘discovering’ this bothers me more.
      Lets see, an organization that “champion(s)…the First Amendment” finds something outrageous about it.

  21. but the cover story is online at Rolling Stone now, with an apparent post time of 11:00am ET (but the first comment apparently only at 2:19)

    So it’s like the morning Brickbats.

  22. It’s not half as offensive as the hundred something Obama covers they’ve had. They’re obviously trying to market to the Tsarnaev fangirl segment. I can respect that profit-motivated gimmickry more than their sincere adulation of Obama.

    1. Maybe there marketing to the fresh meat prison welcoming committee.

    2. “I can respect that profit-motivated gimmickry more than their sincere adulation of Obama.”

      to be honest, if the management moves product and sells ads with Obozo on the cover, I’m still not griping.

    3. My thoughts exactly.

  23. OT: Just wondering if Obama was outraged about this senseless crime against this poor young black girl? How about all of the talking heads? I know I am.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/…..?hpt=hp_t2

    1. Well, if Obama had a son, he would look like that murderous pedophile.

      1. It’s a testament to the power he has over his sheep that he can turn an ordinary story of a fight turned deadly into such a feeding frenzy when we have sick shit like this going on all over the world on a daily basis.

        1. In fairness, you can’t give him credit for much more than slick opportunism. The circumstances of Martin’s killing played only too well to the race pandering and inculcated victimhood beloved by lefties. This story had legs regardless; Obama merely rode it until the thing dropped dead.

  24. Honestly, the first thought that came to my mind when I saw the cover being shown on TV this morning was that they were talking about the cover of a magazine for dirty old homosexuals.

  25. Ed Krayewski is an imbecile. Yep, Obama is just like the two guys who blew people up at the Boston marathon.

      1. C’mon Sevo, Lyle is totally correct here.

        Obama has others do his dirty work for him and would never have the balls to murder-xplode people by his own hand.

        1. GBN, can’t argue with that.
          Pretty sure he didn’t shoot that guy in bed; he had others do it.
          And then took credit, sort of like W’s “mission accomplished!”

      2. Sevo, leave Lyle to his love of blood-bread and murder-circuses. As long as Obama is slaughtering the dread Muslims, Lyle will keep licking his shaft like it’s covered in peanut butter.

  26. Here’s a heartwarming video clip:

    Bill Maher getting booed for making George Zimmerman jokes

    “Better to be a minority owner of the New York Mets than a minority in Florida”. (Arguable)

    “If George Zimmerman can get another gun, Casey Anthony should get another baby.” (You stay classy, Bill. Nothing funnier than dead babies.)

    1. Does this mean I have to start believing (again) that there is hope for humanity?

      Incidentally, what is Maher’s shtick now that Bush is out of office? He doesn’t just do this shit, does he? I refuse to actually watch the man and find out, but if I can free ride on someone else’s folly…

      1. Being one of many Republican-haters. Tea Party, Sarah Palin, John McCain, whoever comes into his tiny mind.

        I haven’t heard him make much noise about Rand Paul or Ted Cruz because either one could rhetorically beat him like a rented mule.

        1. Does he still claim to be a “libertarian”?

          1. No, he claims that those big meanies Paul Ryan and Rand Paul “ruined” libertarianism for him.

            In Bill Maher’s world, all libertarians are supposed to oppose are drug war and sodomy laws. All that talk of free markets, inalienable rights, protections against government overreach, that’s just right-wing, racist, Republican, creepy-ass cracka nonsense.

          2. Bill Maher has said the extent of his libertarianism is to “be able to smoke pot without the meddling federal government on my case”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUjzrS6jwiw

          3. I’ve mentioned this before. Maher has no actual political orientation. He is just a massive narcissist. Bill Maher’s entire belief system amounts to this: “If I like to do something, it should be legal. I don’t care if the government screws with you though.”

            He really is a terrible person.

            1. Bill Maher’s entire belief system amounts to this: “If I like to do something, it should be legal. I don’t care if the government screws with you though.”

              IOW, he’s the prototypical leftist.

      2. His shtick now is letting Obama and Democrats in general get away with Bush-like behavior and whining when Republicans bring it up because they didn’t object 8 years ago.

    2. Better to be a minority owner of the New York Mets than a minority in Florida

      They really are spending an awful lot of energy denying that Zimmerman is part black and Hispanic.

      1. Or that minorities aren’t exactly treated equally in NYC

    3. “If George Zimmerman can get another gun, Casey Anthony should get another baby.”

      In point of fact, it actually would be perfectly legal and possible for Casey Anthony to have another baby, so the joke’s fairly incoherent anyway.

  27. 1) Americans are fucking pussies. “Offended” over a magazine cover? Get over yourselves.

    2) It has already been reported many times why the two brothers did this – because of US attacks on Muslims in other parts of the world. Not because they “hate our freedoms” and not because they wanted to be popular like (dead) rock stars.

    3) Sadly I doubt even 1/1000 of the offended whiners will bother to read the story – afterall it might conflict with their cherished fiction of motives of terrrorists – but then again, I doubt they would have read it without the cover either.

    1. US attacks on Muslims… in Chechnya. In Russia.

      Uh.

      Huh.

      1. Hooray! We’re back to the “hate our freedoms”/blowback discussion!

        1. What do you know, you’re a trans-dimensional God that tried to destroy all of humanity.

        2. Personally, I find the dichotomy itself stupid.

          Anyone who has researched the topic could tell you that Islam is an atypically violent religion and that its foundational texts and leaders institutionalized said violence — that Islamism emphasizes these foundational tendencies and has been adopted by many young Muslim men.

          “Hate us for our freedoms” is a dumb way of putting it, but yeah — that plays its part.

          Blowback as defined by the CIA violence suffered by the civilian population of a belligerent as a result of *local* violence. Me picking up a rifle or blowing up a car bomb because my dad or someone I know was killed by a US servicemember in Basra? Blowback. Me living in Cambridge (where the US has done nothing but treat my family well and offer them asylum), and making a bomb to kill civilians because of a supposed and abstracted global brotherhood? Not “hating us for our freedoms” necessarily, but not blowback, either.

          1. racist

    2. “1) Americans are fucking pussies. “Offended” over a magazine cover? Get over yourselves.”

      I agree that this isn’t something people should get offended over, but if Americans are pussies over this, what does that make Europeans, who arrest people for offensive tweets?

      1. does that make Europeans, who arrest people for offensive tweets?

        Stinky pussies?

      2. I guess us Americans are the world’s tallest pussies.

        Funny, I always thought we were dicks…

      3. It’s pussies all the way down.

        And for the OP’s benefit, that six-year-old boy didn’t kill anyone, Muslim or otherwise. The people who had their limbs blown off didn’t kill anyone. All of these people were about 50% poorer per annum because of the same entity that busies itself killing moslems on the other side of the world every day.

  28. OT and admission: Sorry, I miss most of the dirt on celebs like the guy who offed himself with H and booze this week; yeah, how about that?
    But some actor gives a pass to a ‘former wrestler’. OK, I wrestled in high school gym class, but there weren’t no wrestler like this at my school:
    http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydi…..ney-split/
    If there were, I guarantee I’d have been ‘way more involved in the sport than I was.

    1. Wait, she’s single again? Clear my schedule.

  29. We keep learning more and more about Warty’s ancestors

  30. Bank error in your favor. Collect $92 quadrillion.

    1. Krugabe approves this monetary easing.

  31. Cop shoots dog video. Watch the video and make up your own mind as to whether it’s justified (note : the cops are arresting a guy who was shown earlier “watching” them and they repeatedly told him to leave (presumably because he was in line of fire), and then they are shown arresting him after gap in video. So, it’s unclear what he is being arrested for, and that’s kind of tangential. Note there are TONS of witnesses watching from across the street, but the police believe where the guy was standing was too close, obviously. But it’s NOT clear if that’s why they arrested him as far as I can tell. It is clear the guy is a fucking moron for taking his rott out of the car right next to a bunch of cops doing a felony stop.

    http://www.policeone.com/video…..-shooting/

    1. Haha fucking dipshit dunphy. Just like your kind to put up an “edited” video to keep things muddled.

      Have a look at the unedited one you swine.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE

      1. fucking animals

  32. Help name the Sharknado sequel

    1. Sharquake is the obvious answer, right?

  33. Imo, this officer commits assault here, but he was acquitted in trial. He was also fired by the dept. The guy speaking is a moron, who thinks these videos should only be used to PROTECT officers. Negative, they should be USED. If they protect an officer – good. If they help indict him – that’s good too. Either way, they help the truth get out.

    This assault reminds me of the Paul Schene assault. In that case, the ofc. was fired, and tried twice (hung jury both times). I opined it was an assault, as well. Note in that case, the ofc’s police union refused to allow the ofc. to appeal to binding arbitration. Iow, unions do not always take the cop’s side. In the Schene case, they prevented him from seeking arbtration/rehiring

    http://www.policeone.com/Offic…..f-charges/

  34. Sure, RS can put whatever on they want on the cover. They could put up a less than photogenic picture of Obama with a caption that reads “Obama is a (n-word).” Then we would call them out of their bad taste and decry their racism, and reserve our right to not buy their magazines.

    Just think – of ALL the pictures they could have used (they could have opted for a caricature or a drawing too), they chose the one that made him look like a teen idol. This, after a controversy involving clueless morons on twitter and social media fawning over his looks, to the DISMAY of the victims families and people with a brain.

    The guy was a terrorist, so he’s subject to creative deconstruction and open minded inquiry into his complex mind. If he was racist, then that’s it! He’s evil! Use that picture of George Zimmerman. Look at the picture of Trayvon Martin, he was wee little kid!

    Yeah, I don’t care if the article was critical. That’s not the point.

    1. The ironic thing is that he is basically racist – hating non-muslims.

      And no, that’s not really a race, but “muslim” gets treated by one, getting lumped in with all the “brown people” the US supposedly bombs (never mind that most in the Middle East are about as “brown” as Italians)

      1. Is there a single word for a religious bigot that is equivalent to racist?

        1. Muslim? *rimshot*

  35. THE Iowa Supreme Court has stood by its ruling a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/busines…..z2ZMrBL3dp

    1. It’s the second time the case has been considered, with the all-male court issuing their revised opinion last week after their earlier decision in December due nationwide criticism.

      The dentist didn’t fire her for being a woman: he fired her because she sexually attracted him. He hired another woman to replace her and apparently had no problems with the replacement.

      1. he fired her because she sexually attracted him. He hired another woman to replace her and apparently had no problems with the replacement.

        Burn.

        1. After seeing who she was replacing… double burn.

    2. really expected to see something better than a 5 face on a max 8 body

  36. Fuck RS. They are lefty assholes, but assholes who will be selling more magazines and more hits Don’t buy it you don’t like it. I won’t.

  37. That cover is wank fodder for incarcerated a$$hole bandits in every prison in the country.

  38. I’ve been told almost daily that I look like this asshole.

    After 9/11, I got singled out for extra screening on a three city trip, by my count, 17 of 18 times. I didn’t really have a beef because 1) I think profiling is smart 2) I’m sure as shit not flying with anything illegal and 3) better me than some old lady.

    I’ve flown a couple times since the Boston bombings and didn’t even once get a stink-eye. So the CW among Assholes Who Inspect My Shit must have gone from ‘search men who are kinda swarthy with slightly shady travel plans’ to ‘ignore the fact that a passenger looks like the most famous terrorist and has slightly shady travel plans’.

    Honestly, if my choices are 1) getting pornoscanned for no damn reason and 2) obvious non-terrorists walking by while I get searched because I apparently creepily resemble a famous terrorist, I’ll take the latter in a heart beat. At least it’s not stupid.

  39. I’m offended by their “report from the ‘front lines’ of Climate Change’ piece.

  40. I’m outraged by RS featuring this terrorist on its cover. As a result, I will continue my 35-year boycott of their publication.

  41. Having him on the cover attached to an informative story is fine. But make the image fit the story. Having him on the cover looking like a glamor boy is totally wrong. “On the cover of the tolling stone” is a very noteworthy place to be in our culture. If a mass murdered is photographed to look like Jim Morrison that is NOT an accident and clearly a deliberate ploy by the rag. Shame on them.

  42. And like someone already said. RS must be surprised at the attention after being ignored for the last 25 years or so.

  43. “…(alleged) mass murderers, like, say, Barack Obama. Too far?”

    Yes. Name calling and spurious accusations never make a person appear reasonable. The kid made the cover of Rolling Stone because he has a sweet, angelic face and people just never can seem to get over the fact that good-looking people can and do horrific things. The magazine is exercising pure/base capitalism by taking advantage of prurient interest of its audience. Had the kid been a mud fence there would be no cover shot.

  44. The more interesting story is about the other brother, Tamerlan. After launching a boxing career, the local league changed the rules to exclude permanent residents (only US citizens need apply!), so he was not allowed to compete. That was when he fell into depression and turned to radical Islam. The younger brother followed in his footsteps. If Tamerlan hadn’t been arbitrarily forbidden by stupid corrupt local regulations from pursuing the occupation of his choice, the whole thing would never have happened.

  45. They have put Thomas Meninoand Deval Patrick’s images in publications before, and they have caused far more damage to America than this person has.

  46. Mayor Menino’s “blast” of the Rolling Stone cover was completely appropriate and well-said. It was not blustering, sanctimonious hate mail as Mr. Krayewski implies. Mr. Menino’s open letter to Rolling Stone was lucid and laid out in very clear terms the mayor’s belief: that by putting a close-up shot of Tsarnaev on the cover, it was giving him the sensationalized attention that he and his brother sought when they allegedly carried out their attack on the marathon.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Menino’s statements. His remarks were not an objection to, nor an attempt to block, Rolling Stone’s journalistic expression. All he did was criticize their choice to focus the story on the perp instead of the victims.

    In his letter, Mayor Menino expressed to Rolling Stone that it would have been a wiser decision to instead direct their press toward the victims, volunteers, and their families. While I agree with that sentiment, I understand that it runs contrary to the story angle that Rolling Stone was going for: to explore the mind of an impressionable youth who was turned towards radical beliefs and terrorist activity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.