Y’know, I was going about my business this morning, came upon the kerfuffle over Rolling Stone putting that bomber kid’s phiz on the cover, and it occurred to me that in the (I’m looking it up, bear with me…)(I’m back) 47 years of the magazine’s existence, I’ve never even once bought a copy. I don’t remember ever paging through one in a waiting room.
So I guess I have no opinion. I just thought it was funny.
















































Like you, I’ve never even thumbed through the magazine. However, they have “apparently” had some entertaining and informative — real truth type stuff — now and then. I attribute that to their basically proclaimed counter-culture, mild anarchy editorial policy.
However, I fear their new cover of one of the Boston bombers is more of a tribute to overcoming multiculturalism than exposing information about a sick mid that participated in an act either as a dupe of a false flag operation, or the lashing out of a Islamic Jihadist (wannabe or real) to avenge his poor, misunderstood “religion.”
In other words, it just a blatant expression of the narrative, “can’t we all just get along,” even when the perpetrator considers getting along killing those who disagree with them.