What’s Changed?

A lot of people say that because Charles Manson was on the cover of the Rolling Stone, (43 years ago!) it means that we shouldn’t be surprised that they’ve pushed the envelope this time.

With a terrorist, no less, that has been accused of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Killed 3 people (then possible later an MIT police officer) and injuring 264 others. I believe he wished he had killed more.

Only 3 months after the attack.

So the argument is that Rolling Stone has covered important political news stories. And they have been known to put bad guys like Charles Manson on their covers. Another argument is that this cover raises awareness that bad people come in all forms, not the stereotypical “bad guy” terrorist image we may think they are. Old bearded and foreign..

So let’s take a closer look and see what they had on the cover after another well-known terrorist attack on the USA:

This was the cover one month after September 11th 2001. (October 2001).

Rolling%20Stone october 2001

Anything look different to you?

Or for a better comparison here’s the cover 3 months after the attack (since it’s been 3 months since the Boston Marathon Bombing):

december 2002 rolling stoneWhere’s the guys that flew the planes into the towers? What’s their names again?

I actually can’t quite recall their names because they weren’t really glorified on magazine covers like rock stars..

And did you notice the caption?

NYC terrorIt seems like they did write up a nice informative piece on the attacks. (Because again they do write about politics sometimes).

Yet I still don’t see Bin Laden’s face or any of those other guys laid back searing at the camera like heart-throbs.

So something obviously has changed.

Is it a lack of compassion and respect?

It is because we glorify criminals more now than ever before?

I think maybe a bit of both. Just don’t tell me it’s the same as Charles Manson or any other incident in the past. And don’t tell me it’s because young attractive men are new to killing people- because he fits the exact age stereotype of mass killers and terrorists everywhere.

Remember Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook: All young men that seemingly didn’t fit the mold. Except that we know they do fit the mold. Just like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Just how we know that the average age of a radicalized Jihadist is in their young 20’s. JUST exactly like every single one of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 that were in their very young 20’s. Most of them were 20-24 years old (except one guy was 33).

SO I find it curious that the argument today is Dzhokhar is different because he’s young and seemed to be already assimilated into our country.

Why didn’t they put any of these hijackers on the cover 3 months after 9/11?

They could have easily looked as charismatic or as dreamy if in the right pose as Dzhokhar was.

150px-Salem_al-Hazmi_2 HHanjour0 SAlghamdiOf course I’m being facetious. It’s about respect.

Just some food for thought.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s