Reply
Fri 13 Jan, 2006 08:56 pm
The cover of the January 2006 issue of Rolling Stones is dedicated to King Kong, and a large part of why I purchased a copy.
Sub-story # 2 is a piece on the magazines's selections for "mavericks," "renegades," and "troublemakers" of 2005.
This particular spread is such a rich and fertile field for mockery, and cogent observation that I'm afraid I must indulge in a series of posts.
Post # 1:
"Cindy Sheehan -Maverick of The Year"
There, on page 69, is a photograph, by professional Platon, of Miss Cindy fighting back the tears of her mighty grief.
Ironically, Rolling Stone must have seen this photo as a poignant representation of anti-war sentiment, and yet anyone with a half a brain has to wonder about the sincerity of a posed portrait of grief in a professional photographer's studio.
Read the text and you will find the same disturbingly narcissistic women who has parleyed her son's death into speaking engagements in Madrid.
Mother-Love is by no means pure. Ask the children of Munchausen Syndrome maters.
Anyone with
at least wouldn't buy Rolling Stone.
astromouse wrote:Anyone with
at least wouldn't buy Rolling Stone.
Occassionally it's of value to read what the other side is writing, and the article on King Kong was pretty good.
The series on
renegades was hilarious.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:astromouse wrote:Anyone with
at least wouldn't buy Rolling Stone.
Occassionally it's of value to read what the other side is writing,
rs hasn't had "a side" since they left the trusty folded format behind.
"lindsay lohan; hero of the revolution !! "