Time for a new poll, folks.
We’ve been around the block enough to believe that the editors of TIME know exactly what they’re doing when they pull a stunt like this. The new cover of the venerable weekly photoshops a fallen redwood in place of the American Flag in perhaps the most celebrated and iconic image in American history: the Marines hoisting the Flag atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima during WWII.
The imagery is an unabashed exhortation towards picking up the mantle of unswerving environmentalism in this country.
Its tough for us to get offended by this image as we have zero idea of what real combat is like. For veterans who have been on the receiving end of shots fired in anger, we imagine they might have good reason to be offended but we can’t be offended on their behalf.
Is is silly? Is it juvenile stunt? Is it purposely provocative? A resounding yes on all counts. The complete unseriousness of the cover image is probably why we can't get up our gander on this one. As we suggested, the editors know this will cause a stink in some quarters and that will all be free advertising for one of the standard-bearers of a fading medium.
But… we would like to hear what you think by participating in the poll at the top of the right-hand margin. And by all means expound on your opinion in the comment section… especially if you think we are way off-base.
Thanks in advance for playing along.
Monday, April 21, 2008
An Outrage or just Plain Silly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Although I am slightly offended, I also know who is the offender. I remember the Ass Baboon of Venus holding the Polar Bear issue of TYME,not too long ago, thinking my favorite animal being in danger would finally sway me to the other side. "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" remember?
What a crock! With recent weather patterns and sound minded scientists becoming more vocal, the term "global warming" has become no longer fashionable and now the term is "climate change".
Climate change...what's new about that? Still shoving the same old crap about us being the "evil American"
Hey I can get on board with being a good steward, but let's not piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
As far as the cover, (sorry, I got offtrack again) Hey they got their little, irrelevant piece of crap in the news and it will probably sell more paper(recycled?) And this at the expense of offending "the greatest generation"
Hey, just showing their true colors: Pinko
I wasn't offended at all. That image as been used all over the place.
The image of the Marines raising the American Flag? I had not seen that before.
I mean, "hoisting the tree." (sheesh)
Regarding the poll question: I was about to agree with response number three, but you added too much, it should be shortened to "A brilliant piece of agitprop that represents perfectly the cool-aid I am now drinking. Get onboard, BwD... Green is indeed the new Red."
(White and Blue deleted.)
My uncles *deliberately* cursed in front of me.
I'm a woman.
Yeah, I was in the Navy for five years, but, still, I'm a woman.
And they cussed in front of me about this.
I want to do violence about this abuse.
Dawg, you can call it "GOP-Induced Popsicle Melting Factor" if you like -- it still is a fact.
The earlier we deal with it and correct our damaging activities, the sooner Republicans can figure out how to make a buck off the cure.
Then everybody will be happy.
- Mongo
Nope, still a crock.
You know how I can tell it's a crock? When I hear one side claim "consensus" when there are credible scientists on the other side.
They claim consensus just as the "creation scientists" and "evolutionists" have. Neither one is entirely correct, but each is so vested in their position, they claim “consensus”. People with the facts on their side are not afraid of a debate.
Sounds like the Fundamentalist Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses, "Don't listen to people outside the faith, they're evil"
Debate is good. You say it's a fact, I say the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government".
In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). As little as 30 years ago the talk wasn’t about global warming, it was about an imminent ice age.
Below is some good read.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
That being said, I am for all the good, well thought out plans for conservation. But the Algore "inconvenient truth" is BS.
Road Dawg
Post a Comment