The End of the American Century?

[dungeonbaby]

^^lol

[dungeonbaby]

So Kim Kardashian tweeted "no justice" in reference to the verdict of the Zimmerman case.

 

Her dad was OJ Simpson's lawyer.

 

 

Really? 😐

 

perhaps she was being ironic. lol.

 

my status on this thread is now official lol-ler.

[harmless0810]

 

 

University of Pennsylvania Professor: American God a 'White Racist'

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/03/31/anthea.jpg

Anthea Butler, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Graduate Chair in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, writes in Religious Dispatches magazine that she has decided that the acquittal of George Zimmerman means that America’s God is a white racist. Butler wrote:

God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in an nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem.

 

Butler continued to write that good conservative American Christians fear black and brown people:

 

When George Zimmerman told Sean Hannity that it was God’s will that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, he was diving right into what most good conservative Christians in America think right now. Whatever makes them protected, safe, and secure, is worth it at the expense of the black and brown people they fear.

 

Butler wrote:

 

While many continue to proclaim that the religious right is over, they're wrong. The religious right is flourishing, and unlike the right of the 1970s, religious conservatism of the 21st century is in bed with the prison industrial complex, the Koch brothers, the NRA—all while proclaiming that they are "pro-life." They are anything but. They are the ones who thought that what George Zimmerman did was right, and I am sure my inbox will be full of well-meaning evangelical sermons about how we should all just get along, and God doesn’t see race.

 

Please send them elsewhere.

 

Butler concluded by saying that religious people have a responsibility to tell "all of the story" and not just the "nice touchy-feely parts," and that Christian Americans are some of the "biggest racists." She made a call of responsibility for all of those "not for human flourishing."

 

 

 

is she side show bob's sister? haven't watched the simpsons for a long time.

 

[dungeonbaby]

 

University of Pennsylvania Professor: American God a 'White Racist'

...

 

is she side show bob's sister? haven't watched the simpsons for a long time.

 

she's the graduate chair in the department of religious studies? i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this professor is a proponent of liberation theology also. i could be wrong but i don't understand the racial animosity when apparently homicide in the african-american community is ascribable to african-americans 94% of the time.

 

...

 

university professors have it so good - protected employment under the tenure system, a pulpit from which to spout your political views, power over your students, and a comfortable salary. student loans are now in the trillion dollar territory and higher than credit card debt. for decades, college costs have been rising as much as 7% a year, according to the wall street journal, faster than inflation. that sounds ridiculous especially when you know that the "cost culprit" is labor.

 

...

 

isn't side show bob a crazy a** white cracker?

[harmless0810]

[/size]

 

she's the graduate chair in the department of religious studies? i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this professor is a proponent of liberation theology also. i could be wrong but i don't understand the racial animosity when apparently homicide in the african-american community is ascribable to african-americans 94% of the time.

 

...

 

university professors have it so good - protected employment under the tenure system, a pulpit from which to spout your political views, power over your students, and a comfortable salary. student loans are now in the trillion dollar territory and higher than credit card debt. for decades, college costs have been rising as much as 7% a year, according to the wall street journal, faster than inflation. that sounds ridiculous especially when you know that the "cost culprit" is labor.

 

...

 

isn't side show bob a crazy a** white cracker?

black liberation theology is practiced by jeremiah wright, obama's pastor for 20 years. it's core belief is the redistribution of property from the rich to the poor. wright's speeches are full of hate. years ago, he insulted an accomplished woman by calling her condeskeeza rice.

 

yes, that is how tenure works. it's the closest thing to a risk free employment.

 

about side show bob, he was krusty the clown's former sidekick. well...he's more of a crazed criminal than a cracker.

 

before i forget, cheers for mtf for his post. kim kardashian has to be kareful with her komments.

[dungeonbaby]

black liberation theology is practiced by jeremiah wright, obama's pastor for 20 years. it's core belief is the redistribution of property from the rich to the poor. wright's speeches are full of hate. years ago, he insulted an accomplished woman by calling her condeskeeza rice.

 

yes, that is how tenure works. it's the closest thing to a risk free employment.

 

about side show bob, he was krusty the clown's former sidekick. well...he's more of a crazed criminal than a cracker.

 

before i forget, cheers for mtf for his post. kim kardashian has to be kareful with her komments.

 

i know you like ben carson, as i do. he was saying on hannity that george zimmerman should have been tried for manslaughter, convicted, and gotten 1-2 years in prison, then people would eventually forget about him and he wouldn't have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life - which is what may happen now that he's been acquitted. trayvon martin's life did end at his hands. now i do believe a person has a right to defend himself so i wouldn't have agreed with mr. carson if not for the belief that you do have to pay somehow for the life you take even if an intent was absent or if your actions were justified.

 

i grew up watching the simpsons and sideshow bob is as creepy as a cartoon can get.

 

speaking of despicable things... what the mohair fork is up with the new rolling stones cover? no matter the disclaimer about describing dzhokhar tsarnaev, the boston marathon bomber, as a monster, the cover itself does a good job of glamorizing a terrorist.

Edited July 18, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[viral]

My humble, two bits' worth is that the uni-polar paradigm of preeminence, that of a single country being top dog at a given point in history (in economic and military terms) started to unravel with the industrial revolution which offered the opportunity for different societies to create wealth on a mass scale. As a young nation uniquely founded on democratic principles that unleashed the creativity and energies of people who had fled the Old World to build better lives, America benefited most from riding the industrial revolution because of its human and natural resources, and its distance from the rest of the world. America succeeded in building industrial capability second to none, which was probably the key factor in the outcome of WWII along with its military successes of course, the war being the most decisive event shaping the 20th century. Hence the American Century.

 

But the technologies of the industrial revolution, the ability to create wealth on an unprecedented scale, continued to grow and spread among nations and one of its results today is the wider access to education, information and knowledge which in turn produces even better technologies, notably IT. The ability to create wealth is no longer unique to one or a few nations, so that increasingly we are seeing a multi-polar world in terms of economic capability, military power, and political influence. The Europeans, who were warring among themselves on a massive scale only 68 years ago, after centuries of warfare, have found it better to work together and are now the EU. China has learned that instead of socialism, creating wealth is the key to strength on the world stage, and in Asia at least it will be the big man on the block in coming decades. My fearless prediction is although China is building a big stick in its military, it will have the pragmatism to focus on economic instead of military pursuits for the good of its people. They lost millions in the Cultural Revolution and I'm not sure they want to lose any more, and in any case, for what advantage?

 

Necessarily, America will lose / is losing its global preeminence. The best scenario for the future role of the U.S. in the world is that of being primus inter pares, first among equals. And like it or not, America does have worrisome problems, especially its economy which has become increasingly noncompetitive, and instead of creating and sharing wealth, is premised on acquiring it without producing it, in other words, greed. Jeez, derivatives.

Edited July 18, 2013 by viral

[harmless0810]

i know you like ben carson, as i do. he was saying on hannity that george zimmerman should have been tried for manslaughter, convicted, and gotten 1-2 years in prison, then people would eventually forget about him and he wouldn't have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life - which is what may happen now that he's been acquitted. trayvon martin's life did end at his hands. now i do believe a person has a right to defend himself so i wouldn't have agreed with mr. carson if not for the belief that you do have to pay somehow for the life you take even if an intent was absent or if your actions were justified.

 

i grew up watching the simpsons and sideshow bob is as creepy as a cartoon can get.

 

speaking of despicable things... what the mohair fork is up with the new rolling stones cover? no matter the disclaimer about describing dzhokhar tsarnaev, the boston marathon bomber, as a monster, the cover itself does a good job of glamorizing a terrorist.

the prosecution over charged zimmerman. a manslaughter charge in the zimmerman case carries a sentence of at least 20 years according to lawyers ben shapiro and joel pollak. the legendary lawyer alan dershowitz, said that it should have gotten to a grand jury first. they will then determine if there were enough grounds for a trial. dershowitz wants special prosecutor angela cory disbarred for her misconduct during the proceedings. black civil rights attorney leo terrell agreed with the verdict and lashed out at the media and told them they were a disgrace. he also warned the race profiteers to stop their destructive agenda. he joked in disbelief that he sided with hannity for the first time. they crossed swords many times before.

 

dr. carson's comment was well-meaning. the case was so confusing even the charge of manslaughter was thought to be lenient in this case. only a not guilty verdict will free zimmerman.

 

upto now, the prosecution are still trying the case. jasmine rand, a lawyer for the trayvon martin family, said to greta van susteren it was an injustice and she wants to pursue a civil case against zimmerman. she said that she is a social activist first and a lawyer second. van susteren challenged rand. van susteren wanted rand to look at her civil cases and asked rand if she could match her record. rand backed away from her statements.

 

a revelation was rachel jenteal. dr. walter williams, a professor of economics, wanted to know why educators enabled jenteal. she can't read cursive and she had a hard time communicating. dr. williams said that her level of education is only at the 4th grade elementary level. he's wondering why would they let her graduate high school a year from now. in addition, it was rarely reported that jenteal uttered "that's retarded" several times during her testimony. she used "retarded" as a substitute for no, not true or incorrect. the country's failed educational system reared its ugly head again.

 

now, we go to the culture wars. there are so many links with this post. the interesting ones, including james woods, are at the website, twitchy.

 

 

Celebs Decry Rolling Stone Putting Alleged Terrorist on Front Cover

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/rolling-stone-magazine-Jahar-Tsarnaev-boston-bomber-cover.jpg by Christian Toto 17 Jul 2013

The cover of Rolling Stone was once reserved for the newest bands, the hottest singer-songwriters or the pop culture phenoms grabbing the country by the scruff of its neck.

By using that once revered space for an alleged terrorist, the magazine is squandering plenty of its accumulated good will. Even Hollywood denizens are speaking out against the use of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover.

 

Doug Ellin, best known as one of the creative forces behind HBO's Entourage, set the tone with this succinct Tweet:

 

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

#pathetic

 

Ralph Macchio of Karate Kid fame, retweeted Ellin's message to share the actor's frustration with his followers.

 

Others blasting Rolling Stone's editorial decision include musician Tommy Lee, Jack Osbourne, John Rich, Carson Daly and Disturbed singer David Draiman.

 

Even Captain America himself, Chris Evans, weighed in on the matter:

 

Bad move, Rolling Stone

 

Even the official Twitter feed for The Howard Stern Show, a radio program known for its no holds barred humor, spoke out against the cover choice.

 

Good morning! Howard loves

@RollingStone

but is very offended by their cover with the Boston Bomber on it.

http://bit.ly/11W330c

 

The magazine officially responded to the controversy today:

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone's long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.

 

 

 

 

[dungeonbaby]

the prosecution over charged zimmerman. a manslaughter charge in the zimmerman case carries a sentence of at least 20 years according to lawyers ben shapiro and joel pollak. the legendary lawyer alan dershowitz, said that it should have gotten to a grand jury first. they will then determine if there were enough grounds for a trial. dershowitz wants special prosecutor angela cory disbarred for her misconduct during the proceedings. black civil rights attorney leo terrell agreed with the verdict and lashed out at the media and told them they were a disgrace. he also warned the race profiteers to stop their destructive agenda. he joked in disbelief that he sided with hannity for the first time. they crossed swords many times before.

 

dr. carson's comment was well-meaning. the case was so confusing even the charge of manslaughter was thought to be lenient in this case. only a not guilty verdict will free zimmerman.

 

upto now, the prosecution are still trying the case. jasmine rand, a lawyer for the trayvon martin family, said to greta van susteren it was an injustice and she wants to pursue a civil case against zimmerman. she said that she is a social activist first and a lawyer second. van susteren challenged rand. van susteren wanted rand to look at her civil cases and asked rand if she could match her record. rand backed away from her statements.

 

a revelation was rachel jenteal. dr. walter williams, a professor of economics, wanted to know why educators enabled jenteal. she can't read cursive and she had a hard time communicating. dr. williams said that her level of education is only at the 4th grade elementary level. he's wondering why would they let her graduate high school a year from now. in addition, it was rarely reported that jenteal uttered "that's retarded" several times during her testimony. she used "retarded" as a substitute for no, not true or incorrect. the country's failed educational system reared its ugly head again.

 

think it was legal analyst lis wiehl who said as much about the mandatory 20 years for manslaughter in the zimmerman case. 20 years would have been too much, true.

 

for every person who says the acquittal means mothers will always fear for their children going somewhere as mundane as the local 7-11, there is someone that says a guilty verdict would mean citizens could never again be sure that they have a right to self-defense.

 

saw that when leo terrell said for the first time he agreed with hannity, which was surprising. also saw greta challenge that young female lawyer with her civil rights record, i had never seen greta bare her teeth like that.

 

anyway, it's over, mainstream media should stop trying to convict zimmerman. stevie wonder might not do a concert in florida any time soon, but will he also boycott the 30 other states that have some version of the stand-your-ground law.

[harmless0810]

Tom Bergeron

✔

@

Tom_Bergeron

Just saw the latest

@

RollingStone

cover. Unbelievable. Was this instead of their Al-Qaeda swimsuit edition?

 

DAVID DRAIMAN

✔

@

DAVIDMDRAIMAN

THATS MORE LIKE IT...

#

BoycottRollingStone

#

GlorifiesTerrorists

pic.twitter.com/hcsDSAoFGR

8:07 PM - 18 Jul 2013

 

Brett Rosner @

Brosner85

The Boston Herald does not approve of the Tsarnaev Rolling Stone cover:

pic.twitter.com/8W76ioGMm6

 

7:43 PM - 18 Jul 2013

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1210585147/Tapper__reasonably_small.jpg

Jake Tapper

 

@jaketapper

CNN Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent.

 

http://dfo9svwruwoho.cloudfront.net/images/info-wedge.png

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/791644545.png?1374159474

 

 

@

teala

This would have been a much better

@

RollingStone

cover

#

BostonStrong

pic.twitter.com/UMbx5LKZVd

8:26 AM - 18 Jul 2013

3 fatalities from the bombing, one police officer killed in the line of duty, and 268 people were injured. martin richard's 10 year old sister lost a leg.

 

why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by harmless0810

[Bugatti Veyron]

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-marathon-bombing-photos-tsarnaev-state-police-135346197.html

[viral]

the prosecution over charged zimmerman. a manslaughter charge in the zimmerman case carries a sentence of at least 20 years according to lawyers ben shapiro and joel pollak. the legendary lawyer alan dershowitz, said that it should have gotten to a grand jury first. they will then determine if there were enough grounds for a trial. dershowitz wants special prosecutor angela cory disbarred for her misconduct during the proceedings. black civil rights attorney leo terrell agreed with the verdict and lashed out at the media and told them they were a disgrace. he also warned the race profiteers to stop their destructive agenda. he joked in disbelief that he sided with hannity for the first time. they crossed swords many times before.

 

dr. carson's comment was well-meaning. the case was so confusing even the charge of manslaughter was thought to be lenient in this case. only a not guilty verdict will free zimmerman.

 

upto now, the prosecution are still trying the case. jasmine rand, a lawyer for the trayvon martin family, said to greta van susteren it was an injustice and she wants to pursue a civil case against zimmerman. she said that she is a social activist first and a lawyer second. van susteren challenged rand. van susteren wanted rand to look at her civil cases and asked rand if she could match her record. rand backed away from her statements.

 

a revelation was rachel jenteal. dr. walter williams, a professor of economics, wanted to know why educators enabled jenteal. she can't read cursive and she had a hard time communicating. dr. williams said that her level of education is only at the 4th grade elementary level. he's wondering why would they let her graduate high school a year from now. in addition, it was rarely reported that jenteal uttered "that's retarded" several times during her testimony. she used "retarded" as a substitute for no, not true or incorrect. the country's failed educational system reared its ugly head again.

 

now, we go to the culture wars. there are so many links with this post. the interesting ones, including james woods, are at the website, twitchy.

 

 

Celebs Decry Rolling Stone Putting Alleged Terrorist on Front Cover

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/rolling-stone-magazine-Jahar-Tsarnaev-boston-bomber-cover.jpg by Christian Toto 17 Jul 2013

The cover of Rolling Stone was once reserved for the newest bands, the hottest singer-songwriters or the pop culture phenoms grabbing the country by the scruff of its neck.

By using that once revered space for an alleged terrorist, the magazine is squandering plenty of its accumulated good will. Even Hollywood denizens are speaking out against the use of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover.

 

Doug Ellin, best known as one of the creative forces behind HBO's Entourage, set the tone with this succinct Tweet:

 

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

#pathetic

 

Ralph Macchio of Karate Kid fame, retweeted Ellin's message to share the actor's frustration with his followers.

 

Others blasting Rolling Stone's editorial decision include musician Tommy Lee, Jack Osbourne, John Rich, Carson Daly and Disturbed singer David Draiman.

 

Even Captain America himself, Chris Evans, weighed in on the matter:

 

Bad move, Rolling Stone

 

Even the official Twitter feed for The Howard Stern Show, a radio program known for its no holds barred humor, spoke out against the cover choice.

 

Good morning! Howard loves

@RollingStone

but is very offended by their cover with the Boston Bomber on it.

http://bit.ly/11W330c

 

The magazine officially responded to the controversy today:

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone's long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The work of intelligent journalism is to report, to provoke thought, and to offer inputs enabling readers to develop a view to an event in its fullest context. Then they can arrived at more informed opinions.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was the doer, the prime mover behind the Boston Marathon bombing. He caused it to happen.

 

From a journalistic standpoint, I can accept why the editors put him on the cover, distasteful as it might seem. Putting the victims on the cover would have been the humanly empathetic thing to do, but it would have deviated from the focus of journalism.

 

By the same token, that is why books are written about serial killers and other sociopaths, not their victims..

Edited July 20, 2013 by viral

[maxiev]

The work of intelligent journalism is to report, to provoke thought, and to offer inputs enabling readers to develop a view to an event in its fullest context. Then they can arrived at more informed opinions.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was the doer, the prime mover behind the Boston Marathon bombing. He caused it to happen.

 

From a journalistic standpoint, I can accept why the editors put him on the cover, distasteful as it might seem. Putting the victims on the cover would have been the humanly empathetic thing to do, but it would have deviated from the focus of journalism.

 

By the same token, that is why books are written about serial killers and other sociopaths, not their victims..

Well yeah but Rolling Stones Magazine has a very large readership. I can't understand why such a respected and renowned magazine could feature a terrorist on its front cover when there are so many other people out there more deserving of the honor of being featured on the front cover.

 

If he was an activist who advocated non-violence in pursuit of his cause, then maybe the backlash wouldn't have been as extreme.

 

You can imagine if the magazine featured Ted Bundy on its front page. Think of all the negative publicity that would have been generated.

 

Obviously, the magazine provoked much more than thought. It provoked anger and may have greatly eroded the prestige it had built up over such a long period of time.

 

A boycott of the magazine may have dire consequences for its bottom line. After all, the publication IS also a business.

[viral]

Well yeah but Rolling Stones Magazine has a very large readership. I can't understand why such a respected and renowned magazine could feature a terrorist on its front cover when there are so many other people out there more deserving of the honor of being featured on the front cover.

 

If he was an activist who advocated non-violence in pursuit of his cause, then maybe the backlash wouldn't have been as extreme.

 

You can imagine if the magazine featured Ted Bundy on its front page. Think of all the negative publicity that would have been generated.

 

Obviously, the magazine provoked much more than thought. It provoked anger and may have greatly eroded the prestige it had built up over such a long period of time.

 

A boycott of the magazine may have dire consequences for its bottom line. After all, the publication IS also a business.

 

I stand by my statement about the function of intelligent journalism. Think of the time Erap called for a boycott of the Inquirer.

[dungeonbaby]

The work of intelligent journalism is to report, to provoke thought, and to offer inputs enabling readers to develop a view to an event in its fullest context. Then they can arrived at more informed opinions.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was the doer, the prime mover behind the Boston Marathon bombing. He caused it to happen.

 

From a journalistic standpoint, I can accept why the editors put him on the cover, distasteful as it might seem. Putting the victims on the cover would have been the humanly empathetic thing to do, but it would have deviated from the focus of journalism.

 

By the same token, that is why books are written about serial killers and other sociopaths, not their victims..

 

true, the magazine cover did provoke. just as rolling stones did in the past with its charles manson cover. let's say that the magazine did want to investigate how a young man became a monster when he was by all indications doing well in america. was that the sole reason rolling stones used that selfie on the cover? was the feature going to be a psych piece on why this terrorist has got teenage girls atwitter and calling for his release? if so, could rolling stones not have placed the photo on the inside?

 

there's no question it's distasteful, one can only imagine the pain that victims and their loved ones feel over the fan base that has developed around dzhokhar proclaiming his innocence. is there any doubt that young females defend him for his good looks, did khalid sheikh mohammed develop such a fanbase after his photo was released? the rolling stones cover is a glamour shot, a flattering shot taken by dzhokhar himself, and we all know a caption-less picture can deliver a powerful message. in this case, the ensuing furor has shown that the photo is more powerful than the accompanying cover type.

 

the people who reacted found it hard to believe it was not a deliberate attempt to sell copies, to be controversial, despite the obvious insensitivity to victims of the bombing. so while the editors can claim they had a journalistic mission, it's doubtful they can claim common decency. they could have stuck to their mission and been respectful of the dead and the maimed by simply choosing a more appropriate cover.

 

 

I stand by my statement about the function of intelligent journalism. Think of the time Erap called for a boycott of the Inquirer.

 

with its front page misdeeds in the last year, i have trouble equating the Inquirer with intelligent journalism

 

 

to maxiev: you and i are free to express our disgust with a boycott of a publication. but write and boycott its sponsors, more effective.

Edited July 21, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[camiar]

I stand by my statement about the function of intelligent journalism. Think of the time Erap called for a boycott of the Inquirer.

I'm not for Erap, but his call for Inquirer boycott was justified. Inquirer has degenerated as the propaganda machine of the oligarchs. During that time, it's nothing but negative journalism. Now that their candidate has won, suddenly their negative journalism disappeared? Do you see pictures of poverty on the front page like the ones they post everyday before?

Do not equate Inquirer with intelligent journalism.

 

Not to be OT, Dzhokhar's glamorous picture on cover page reeks of insensitivity. But I think it was well calculated to generate so much attention, and for sure, increased sales.

[viral]

true, the magazine cover did provoke. just as rolling stones did in the past with its charles manson cover. let's say that the magazine did want to investigate how a young man became a monster when he was by all indications doing well in america. was that the sole reason rolling stones used that selfie on the cover? was the feature going to be a psych piece on why this terrorist has got teenage girls atwitter and calling for his release? if so, could rolling stones not have placed the photo on the inside?

 

there's no question it's distasteful, one can only imagine the pain that victims and their loved ones feel over the fan base that has developed around dzhokhar proclaiming his innocence. is there any doubt that young females defend him for his good looks, did khalid sheikh mohammed develop such a fanbase after his photo was released? the rolling stones cover is a glamour shot, a flattering shot taken by dzhokhar himself, and we all know a caption-less picture can deliver a powerful message. in this case, the ensuing furor has shown that the photo is more powerful than the accompanying cover type.

 

the people who reacted found it hard to believe it was not a deliberate attempt to sell copies, to be controversial, despite the obvious insensitivity to victims of the bombing. so while the editors can claim they had a journalistic mission, it's doubtful they can claim common decency. they could have stuck to their mission and been respectful of the dead and the maimed by simply choosing a more appropriate cover.

 

 

 

with its front page misdeeds in the last year, i have trouble equating the Inquirer with intelligent journalism

 

 

to maxiev: you and i are free to express our disgust with a boycott of a publication. but write and boycott its sponsors, more effective.

[viral]

true, the magazine cover did provoke. just as rolling stones did in the past with its charles manson cover. let's say that the magazine did want to investigate how a young man became a monster when he was by all indications doing well in america. was that the sole reason rolling stones used that selfie on the cover? was the feature going to be a psych piece on why this terrorist has got teenage girls atwitter and calling for his release? if so, could rolling stones not have placed the photo on the inside?

 

there's no question it's distasteful, one can only imagine the pain that victims and their loved ones feel over the fan base that has developed around dzhokhar proclaiming his innocence. is there any doubt that young females defend him for his good looks, did khalid sheikh mohammed develop such a fanbase after his photo was released? the rolling stones cover is a glamour shot, a flattering shot taken by dzhokhar himself, and we all know a caption-less picture can deliver a powerful message. in this case, the ensuing furor has shown that the photo is more powerful than the accompanying cover type.

 

the people who reacted found it hard to believe it was not a deliberate attempt to sell copies, to be controversial, despite the obvious insensitivity to victims of the bombing. so while the editors can claim they had a journalistic mission, it's doubtful they can claim common decency. they could have stuck to their mission and been respectful of the dead and the maimed by simply choosing a more appropriate cover.

 

 

 

 

with its front page misdeeds in the last year, i have trouble equating the Inquirer with intelligent journalism

 

 

to maxiev: you and i are free to express our disgust with a boycott of a publication. but write and boycott its sponsors, more effective.

 

 

The photo that we're debating, in the context of developments involving global polarization based on cultural and religion, is from a war that is ongoing. For context, please read the piece below that I have copied.

 

 

By the way, I don't like the Inquirer very much, but is strives to practice intelligent journalism more than most other local publications, even if it doesn't always succeed, and it has f#&ked up bigtime. But please show me any publication that has a perfect record of pleasing its readers, or more important, a perfect record of accuracy and judgment.

 

There's always a way to demonstrate disapproval of a publication -- stop buying and reading it.

 

As for the stupid young girls who support the Boston Bomber, do you really think it's the Rolling Stone's fault?

 

 

 

 

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/standalone/slideshow/nyt_logo.gif

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/lens/lens_post.png

September 23, 2009, 12:00 am

From the Archive: Not New, Never Easy

By DAVID W. DUNLAP and JAMES ESTRINIn two years of global warfare, America had yet to see almost any pictures of dead Americans.

 

Then, in September 1943, an issue of Life magazine arrived in people’s homes and at their corner newsstands. It forced them to confront a stark, full-page picture by George Strock that showed three American servicemen sprawled on Buna Beach in New Guinea; two face down, one supine; their lifelessness unmistakable even in a still photograph.

 

On the facing page, Life’s editors said they had been fighting since February to get a picture past government censors at the Office of War Information, headed by Elmer Davis.

 

“Well, this is the picture,” they declared. “And the reason we print it now is that, last week, President Roosevelt and Elmer Davis and the War Department decided that the American people ought to be able to see their own boys as they fall in battle; to come directly and without words into the presence of their own dead.”

 

The Washington Post, for one, celebrated the new policy. In an editorial on Sept. 11, it said:

 

An overdose of such photographs would be unhealthy. But in proper proportion they can help us to understand something of what has been sacrificed for the victories we have won. Against a tough and resourceful enemy, every gain entails a cost. To gloss over this grim fact is to blur our vision. If we are to behave as adults in meeting our civilian responsibilities, we must be treated as adults. This means simply that we must be given the truth without regard to fears about how we may react to it.

 

Having said that, however, The Post added that it could not “wholly avoid the suspicion that the government is now letting us see something of the grimmer side of war because it considers us overoptimistic.” So even then, the issue was far from being clearly resolved.

 

And 66 years later, the fundamental question — is it a vital public service or a betrayal of public trust to graphically depict wartime casualties among American troops? — has scarcely been settled. Witness the impassioned recent debate over a decision by The Associated Press to release a picture taken by Julie Jacobson of a mortally wounded marine in Afghanistan.

 

There was little debate, however, among some of the leading figures in photography whom Lens contacted recently.

 

“I think the A.P. was absolutely correct in this decision,” said Dirck Halstead, the editor and publisher of The Digital Journalist, who was United Press International’s photo bureau chief in Saigon in 1965 and 1966.

 

Don McCullin, who covered the war in Indochina for The Sunday Times of London, said, “She probably did the right thing because, otherwise, why is she there?”

 

“Nobody wants to take pictures like that, but the reason you’re there is to cover the story,” said David Hume Kennerly, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for his photography of the Vietnam War for U.P.I. “To me, it’s not even a gray area.”

 

John G. Morris, a former picture editor of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and the author of “Get the Picture,” said, “I emphatically agree with the thinking of the photographer, of the editors of Associated Press and of The New York Times that this photograph is publishable.”

 

Many readers objected, all the same. Besides the disturbing nature of Ms. Jacobson’s picture, and the fact that the A.P. distributed it against the wishes of the marine’s father (echoed emphatically by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates), what helped fuel the debate was the fact that such pictures have rarely been seen in recent years from Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

This was not the case during the Vietnam War.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-McCullin.jpg

European Pressphoto Agency

Don McCullin and one of his photographs in Madrid in 2007.“We were given carte blanche, and now that would be classified as unacceptable,” Mr. McCullin recalled. He photographed dying American soldiers, helped transport a wounded soldier in a stretcher off the battlefield in Hue and was himself injured in Cambodia. “I took exactly the same risks that they took,” he said.

 

Mr. Halstead had a similar recollection. “Vietnam was a total free-for-all,” he said.

 

“Our job was to be there to take photographs of whatever happened in front of us,” he said. “Our core mission was to record history. We had to file based on the merits of the picture. I always take the position that the end decision was taken by the newspaper or magazine to run a photo. We supplied the photographs and they decided what to publish.”

 

Mr. Halstead put his finger on a significant point: whether at Buna Beach or in Hue or Helmand Province, a photographer is more likely to catch the aftermath of an engagement than the heat of battle — during which plain survival becomes a high priority for noncombatants.

 

“In Vietnam, unfortunately, most of the soldiers that were hit were dead,” Mr. Halstead said. “I certainly photographed too many of those. All you have to do is look at Henri Huet’s photos. In all the cases, the soldiers are being helped by medics.

 

“That is the heart of war coverage. There are few photographs of soldiers fighting. If there is hand-to-hand combat, chances are that you’re not taking pictures. In the course of war photography, you rarely see pictures of soldier fighting in close contact with the enemy like you see in the movies.”

 

A key difference between Mr. Strock’s photo and that taken by Ms. Jacobson last month was that the faces of the dead were obscured on the beach. The marine whom Ms. Jacobson photographed moments after he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush was all too recognizable as Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, whose father implored the A.P. not to distribute the picture. Most readers of Lens who objected to the release of the photograph did so on that basis.

 

Ms. Jacobson’s photo was not, however, the first widely published picture of a mortally wounded, identifiable American serviceman.

 

A much earlier example was a photograph taken by Larry Burrows that served as the cover of Life magazine on Apr. 16, 1965. Mr. Burrows was following Lance Cpl. James C. Farley of the Marines, the crew chief of helicopter Yankee Papa 13. He was aboard the aircraft at Da Nang when the squadron was attacked by the Vietcong. Under fire, Lt. James E. Magel was mortally wounded. He can be seen in the pictures lying inert at the feet of Corporal Farley.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-Burrows.jpg

Associated Press

Henri Huet, left, and Larry Burrows a few days before they were killed with two other photographers when their helicopter was shot down.Mr. Burrows died over Laos six years later when the helicopter carrying him and three other photographers, Mr. Huet among them, was shot down. He was 44.

 

His son, Russell, was 22 at the time. He remembers that Lieutenant Magel’s mother reached out to his family in sympathy. “My mother received a letter from his mother which basically said that she’d cancelled her subscription to Life immediately and hadn’t looked at the magazine between that time and 1965,” Russell Burrows said. Then, in 1971, she’d inadvertently picked up a copy of Life at the hairdresser’s and learned that the man who photographed her dying son had himself been killed in the war.

 

The younger Mr. Burrows said he also received a message from Lieutenant Magel’s mother. “The point of her letter was to say that she was belatedly grateful for anything my father had been able to do to help her son in the last moments of his life,” he said. “I’ve always wanted to talk to her.”

 

Photographically what Mr. Burrows did try to do — as was his custom, his son said — was to obscure the lieutenant’s face somewhat. “He was trying to present the war in a way that it would reach people,” Russell Burrows said, “as opposed to a way that would so horrify them that they would shut down and not see the pictures.”

 

He did, however, want his pictures to have an impact. Mr. Burrows’s guiding philosophy was paraphrased by his son: “In the end, it comes across as a little trite but essentially it was that if he could show the interested and shock the uninterested into seeing something like the horrors of war, he’d done his job.”

 

That is not to say photographers and editors exercised no restraint. “We endeavored not to show anybody’s face,” Mr. Kennerly recalled. “It’s not like going to a car race, hoping there’s a wreck. I don’t know of any photographer who’s gone into combat hoping to see somebody get shot.”

 

Mr. Morris was Life’s London picture editor during World War II and said he had suppressed many photographs for reasons of taste. “Who wants to inflict pictures of headless corpses on readers?” he asked.

 

But he said he is generally an advocate of the unblinking depiction of combat and its consequences.

 

“As picture editor of The New York Times during the Vietnam War,” Mr. Morris said, “I argued for prominent usage of the pictures by the A.P.’s Eddie Adams of the execution of a Vietcong suspect, for the publication of the photo by the A.P.’s Nick Ut of a naked Cambodian girl running from napalm, of the picture by John Filo of the shooting of a student at Kent State by National Guardsmen.

 

“If those pictures helped turned the world against continuation of the Vietnam war I am glad,” he wrote in an e-mail message from Paris. “If Julie Jacobson’s picture awakens even a few more of our fellow citizens to the necessity of finding a non-military solution in Afghanistan, I shall be eternally grateful.”

 

That sort of sentiment, of course, is exactly what animates many critics of the press. Judging from comments to the Lens blog, a large number of readers believe that journalists who insist on depicting the “horrors of war” are, in fact, advocating a pacifist political agenda — with one eye on a Pulitzer.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-350px.jpgMichael Kamber had two front-page photographs of wounded soldiers in Iraq on May 23, 2007. The seriously wounded man survived.“I would say that in my last trip in Afghanistan, in July, soldiers were markedly more hostile and suspicious towards me as a journalist than had been the case in earlier years,” said Michael Kamber, a photographer whose work is frequently published in The Times. “Not sure where this comes from, but there’s no doubt in my mind. In Iraq, particularly in the early years, they were quite welcoming. The hostility has ratcheted up noticeably.”

 

Sounding as if he had just read the 1943 Washington Post editorial (he hadn’t), Mr. Kamber added: “People have attacked me for being unpatriotic for publishing pictures of wounded and dead Americans. I find this strange. Press control — censorship — is something that happens in Communist China, in Russia. One of the cornerstones of our democracy is freedom of the press. As journalists, we need to be able to work openly and publish photos that reflect reality so that the public and government officials have an accurate idea of what is going on. They can make decisions accordingly.”

 

Thirty years earlier, Mr. McCullin was moved by much the same spirit. “I wasn’t looking to become rich,” he said by telephone from his home in rural Somerset, England. “I was just looking to make people aware of the suffering and price of war. It does not come cheap. People must be informed. Unfortunately, it’s the family of the soldiers who pick up the bill at the end of the day. It’s not the photographer who’s responsible. It’s the government of the nations who declare war.”

 

And then he said something wholly unexpected.

 

“I feel I totally wasted a large part of my life following war. I get more pleasure photographing the landscape around my house in my twilight years.

 

“Have we learned any lessons from the countless pictures of pain and suffering? I don’t think we’ve learned anything. Every year, there’s more war and suffering.”

 

[dungeonbaby]

Is the music and pop culture that diluted that you have to publish a pinup of a Morrison look-alike to reinvent the publication?

 

The U.S., stamping a posthumous cover to commemorate the life of a young man who just so happens to have injured hundreds and fatally wound a handful? Sounds about right. 'Merica.

 

My phone isn't exactly ringing off the hook to get me on the cover of the latest Al Jadid news magazine. I would've smiled for them. Sayang.

 

 

they can't publish a pinup of you yet, mtf, despite the brilliant smile. next month's issue is already being imagined...

 

 

Edited July 23, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[harmless0810]

UPDATED: George Zimmerman Emerges from Hiding to Rescue Family from Overturned Truck

 

by Elizabeth Shield 22 Jul 2013

George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted on second degree murder, emerged from hiding to rescue someone trapped in an overturned truck.

UPDATED: Zimmerman rescued a family of 4, 2 adults and 2 children. (When is he going to learn to stay in his car? Ha!)

 

Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.

 

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417.

 

THE WHITE-HISPANIC RACIST REVEALS HIS TRUE COLORS.

 

"I would love to have a George Zimmerman in our community." - Larry Elder (black conservative radio host)

[viral]

The picture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone is trying to tell readers that there is something seriously evil going on, it is actually happening all over the world. And it's important to understand it so we can deal with it effectively. We HAVE to deal with it effectively, as communities and societies. If only to keep it from killing and maiming more innocent people. That could be you, me, our families and friends, doing nothing more innocent than being at the mall or on a bus or in a movie house at the wrong time. Or running in a marathon.

 

Is the picture distasteful, hateful? Sure, it is. But it's today's reality staring you in the face, and it isn't comfortable or pleasant at all. Can you ignore it? Sure, your call.

Edited July 24, 2013 by viral

[harmless0810]

PHOTOS JULY 17, 2013

 

 

A Visual History of Terrible People on Magazine Covers From Stalin to Tsarnaev

BY DELPHINE RODRIK

 

 

The editors of Rolling Stone probably weren't surprised when the cover of their August issue, featuring the bedroom eyes of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, provoked controversy online and off. Worrying that the photo glorifies his image, some Massachusetts businesses are even refusing to sell copies of the issue. But for all the outrage, evildoers have a long history as magazine cover stars. Tsarnaev is the latest proof, it seems, that being a terrorist can get you into a jail cell indefinitely—or land you on a cover for good.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/hitler-time.jpg

 

TIME magazine featured five covers with Adolf Hitler's face from 1931 on; he was promoted to the magazine's Man Of The Year in the January 1939 issue. The last cover of Hitler was published May 7, 1945 following his death. This one is from his earlier days, published on March 13, 1933.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/stalin-time.jpg

 

Josef Stalin was named TIME's Man Of The Year in January of 1943.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/saddam-hussein-time.jpg

 

 

Sixty years later, Saddam Hussein was visibly pronounced dead.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/bin-laden-time.jpg

 

Osama Bin Laden followed in May of 2011.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/charles-manson-rolling-stone.jpghttp://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/charles-manson-life.jpg

 

Charles Manson made his way on to Rolling Stone's cover in June of 1970. He had graced the cover of LIFE the year before.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/columbine-killers-time.jpg

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, better known as the Columbine shooters, were also featured on the cover of TIME in 1999.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/buddhist-monk-wirathu-time.jpg

 

Time featured a less recognizable terrorist on its cover recently: Myanmar's Wirathu, a monk labeled as "The Face of Buddhist Terror."

 

 

 

 

 

Whether we like their stories or not, freedom of expression is essential in a free society.

[dungeonbaby]

Whether we like their stories or not, freedom of expression is essential in a free society.

 

what many people forget is that the constitutionally protected freedoms we have 1) extend to all people - conservative or liberal, 2) come with responsibilities, and 3) are not unlimited. just as you have the right to carry a gun, you are charged to use it responsibly without infringing on other citizens' rights. words can hurt, too, and just as you are free to say what you feel or believe, others are free to respond in kind.

[maxiev]

what many people forget is that the constitutionally protected freedoms we have 1) extend to all people - conservative or liberal, 2) come with responsibilities, and 3) are not unlimited. just as you have the right to carry a gun, you are charged to use it responsibly without infringing on other citizens' rights. words can hurt, too, and just as you are free to say what you feel or believe, others are free to respond in kind.

Agreed.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

I don't mind; I'll take a copy.

Make that two...