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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0a6c0/0a6c06bddd86fa0a8005b9484accf2e622c11e8b" alt="Razz"
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0a6c0/0a6c06bddd86fa0a8005b9484accf2e622c11e8b" alt="Razz"
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 !! "