This article is worth even less thought than the subject it attempting to
address. Congratulations on drawing even more attention to the magazine
you're accusing of glorifying a terrorist. If they're guilty, then
you're guilty by association for piling on.
I think that Carmen is justified in at least expressing an opinion on this. The
guy already has received huge press, so Carmen's writing about him in this
negative light is not going to bring more exposure to him. It is the positive
press from RS that is problematic.
What's this? A cover story about a bad person who wasn't born bad?
Scandalous.In the old days, this would never have been allowed . . .
except for the stories about Bonnie and Clyde, Ted Bundy, O.J., Hitler, Jim
Jones, Osama bin Laden, Saddam, Jeffrey Dahmer, Rasputin, Gaddafi, Attila the
Hun, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Boston Strangler, well, I
don't have time for this.
The decision to put him on the cover illustrates to all of us that we can't
always judge a book by its cover.
The real tragedy is to miss the point of the story. I read it. It's worth
reading. "Monstrous" people don't start out that way. To believe
that is to profile those who are different from us. To believe that there are
people who are less than, because they are more "monster"-like than we
is to miss the plain fact that there are potential monsters in all of us. He
was a lovely child. He is an attractive young man. He did start out life as an
innocent baby. What happened to bring him to this tragic point in his life is
pretty important stuff, because his tragedy became tragic for even more
innocents. What makes a man a monster? What could become monstrous in us?
What is monstrous about our culture, country or policies that might make
monsters of others? These are questions we must ask ourselves if we are serious
about finding solutions to terrorism. For when we dehumanize our enemies and
call them "monsters," it enables us to hate. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his
brother made that mistake. We would do well to learn from their error.
I feel it is important to have a dialogue on what ideas or pressure would cause
a person to strike out against the country that offered them sanctuary.I think the article is simply trying to explore what caused him to change.Is it not important to address these issues?
Stories like this crack me up. They complain about the cover and content of the
issue, but then they go on and show the cover photo and discuss everything about
the article. Fox News complains about it all day too, and yet they plaster the
photo on TV it seems like every hour. I probably would never have seen the
magazine if were not for articles like these.
This isn;t new to rolling stone magazine. They put Manson on their cover back
when he was making the news...
Rolling Stone isn't "glorifying" the bomber (as Carmen Rasmussen
asserts)....they are simply trying to create controversy. This magazine
survives on being controversial. The more you press you give them, the more it
feeds the beast. Stop talking about this and it will go away.Don't feed the trolls, Deseret News!
There isn't a soul alive who will stop reading RS because of the cover. If
you were offended by it, you probably weren't a subscriber or reader...
So, did he buy five copies for his mother? (betraying my age)Seriously, the value of the cover photo is that it decouples the subconscious
linkage between evil soul and evil face. We are constantly presented with media
images that depict evil people as ugly, horrid monsters. In fiction, think
Disney's evil cartoon stepmothers, Voldemort in the Harry Potter films, any
of a parade of villains and thugs in Spiderman, Batman, Superman strips and
films, and the passengers on Con Air. In the real world, the lean, hirsute,
hollow face of Osama bin Laden and the severe part and cropped mustache of
Adolph Hitler are synonymous with the face of evil. The reality is different.
Not all thugs come from Central Casting. Not all robbers wear striped shirts
and black masks (think how easy it would be to arrest them if they did!).
Sometimes evil, or a perpetrator thereof, is pretty. even beautiful.When I was a kid, the safety booklets in school warning against abduction
featured creepy men in cars. No one would have taken candy from them. They
should have warned us about the nice priests, coaches, and neighbors.
That's the point of the cover.
Rolling Stone said that it used an unmodified photo from Tsarnaev's social
media postings. Carmen asserts that the photo was modified to make Tsarnaev look
more appealing. Where is her evidence for this assertion? Rolling Stone put
Charles Manson on its cover, and that didn't generate the kind of reaction
that Carmen and others like her have to this article and photo. The difference
is due to the fact that people like Carmen need everything to be black and
white, with no confusing shades of grey. Most especially, a terrorist must be
100% evil and must look the part, with no sympathy-inducing qualities
whatsoever. The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev article and picture don't fulfill that
expectation, so many Americans cannot accept them and need to banish them from
It's a shame that the author had her own dreams of ever being in Rolling
Stone smashed. So, I guess her bitterness shines through here. How about we do
some free thinking instead of bouncing on the bandwagon. This article was truly
heartbreaking. I think the author should stick to Smurf movies and smores
recipes, safe topics, because such a serious topic is beyond her skill level so
It's insulting to people who actually analyze the world with any degree of
nuance that a so-called "journalist" like Herbert can't acknowledge
that the human condition is worth exploring, including that of people who do
terrible things. If we stop such introspection, we become merely a bunch of
mindless, knee-jerk ideologues who simply brand everyone with a
"righteous" or "unrighteous" label. That's the point of the
RS article.To those who herald the officer for revealing the photos,
I can only assume you also laud people like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, and
Julian Assange, right? Though I condone the actions of none of them, the actions
of the police officer seem particularly rash and idiotic b/c the only thing that
ticked him off was a piece in a rock 'n' roll magazine, rather than
something weightier, like wars that cost trillions of dollars of hundreds of
thousands of lives. Seriously? It's probably a good thing he's on desk
duty. Somone w/that level of rashness shouldn't be on patrol and armed. I
can't imagine what it would be like to actually be married to someone so
Carmen should have read the article. It does not "glorify" the bomber