Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo.

[MADem]

28. My personal view, as someone from the Bay State, is that the magazine cover is tasteless.

I support CVS's decision, along with Walgreen's, Stop and Shop, Tedeschi's and other businesses, to not carry the magazine.

You wanna buy it? Go ahead. Just don't buy it in one of those stores. Don't like that those businesses are not carrying it? Too bad. You paint yourself as "bemused" and not indignant (mindlessly or otherwise), but your continued carping at me about this topic suggests that you're quite annoyed about this--otherwise, you wouldn't go on about it like you're doing. You would, instead, "get over it," and not demand that New Englanders see things your way.

I was born at night, just not last night.

That's my view, and it's not "irrational." What's irrational is that someone is getting pissed off like a wet hen because businesses decide to NOT carry a product, even though those businesses were upfront enough to tell people "Don't come here for this product because we're giving it a miss this month."

I've been reading RS for four or five decades off and on--the politics, with rare exception, is INSIDE. The MURDERERS, with now two exceptions, are inside. The musicians, celebrities, infotainment people--all dressed up with Pepsodent smiles--are on the cover. The only exceptions lately have been the odd mocking cartoons of Bush, and a cover of (rock star, prettified, airbrushed, and smiling) Bill Clinton. Oh--and Al Gore's penis, front and center--another "Rolling Stone Cover Controversy" that they played for all the free publicity it was worth.



Murderers, terrorists, and criminals don't grace the cover of the Rolling Stone. It's not the paradigm. The Manson cover, as I said, caught a world of shit. People thought it was wrong to put a mass murderer on the cover of that magazine.

Guess who was on the cover of that issue you're going on about that featured Stanley McChrystal? The General? Nooooooo. Michael Hastings? Noooooooo! A dusty, grimy pic of an Afghan outpost? NOOOOOOOO!

The cover for that issue was LADY GAGA IN A THONG.

"Serious" journalism, maybe...but the cover stayed true to their business model.