Jump to content

Boston Frog

Members
  • Content Count

    30,761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

Everything posted by Boston Frog

  1. And certainly don't make him look like a rock star. I'm glad to hear you say this, os. Your opinion on these matters, as always, means a lot to me.
  2. It's the treatment of it more than the photo itself. He's made, I think very intentionally by Rolling Stone, to look like a rock star. He doesn't look like a normal college-age kid to me at all. He looks like The Next Big Thing. Plus, the cover line, "The Bomber," is borderline cool. It's not "the terrorist" or "the murderer." The Bomber could be somebody's legit nickname (like Daryl Lamonica, for instance)
  3. Duh, Greek, of course. My wife told me that, and I just forgot. Makes a lot more sense, though. Doesn't matter because he's pretty much named after Andy Dalton, anyway
  4. Here's my full rant from the other thread I don't know that in my 39 years I've ever bought a copy of Rolling Stone, and I'm not sure I've ever gone to the Web site, either. I've never had much desire to live in 1969 or know which awful musical act I was supposed to idolize. So, if I say I'm boycotting Rolling Stone, that is to say that I'm continuing a boycott that probably wasn't going to end, anyway. But this cover with the marathon bomber on it is unacceptable and borderline disgusting. I'll tell you why. It's because Rolling Stone presents him like a rock star, with the young-Bob Dylan look, the bedroom eyes and the wispy cloud of hair. It's a picture the guy took of himself, but it's clearly a picture meant to make him look sexy, and Rolling Stone knows that. This guy and his brother (allegedly, I guess) plotted a mass murder, which fortunately wasn't as bad as it could have been. They killed a cop at point-blank range. There are people in this city right now without arms and legs because of what these brothers did. There are many, many more who have lost a sense of security. Rolling Stone, though, didn't use a photo of one of the victims, or a photo of this kid beaten and bloodied after being chased down by cops (although that might have been worse, actually). Nope, he got the rock star treatment, complete with a catchy cover line ("The Bomber"). That's what really angers me. Rolling Stone's cover has always been a spot for rock stars and other people we're supposed to somehow like or admire (except Charles Manson back in the '60s--also a poor choice). And this guy makes the cover looking like the latest thing in pop music, not like a terrorist. It's all about context. The shame of it all is that the article, which explores how a seemingly normal guy, an American citizen well-liked by most, got roped into doing what he did. It's probably an article we all need to read, and it's probably pretty well done. But I'm not going to read it because I don't want to endorse what Rolling Stone has done in any way. This is a desperate attempt by a fading magazine to try to get some publicity, and it has worked. It's pathetic, though, and it's a new low for the tawdry magazine business (a business I happen to be in myself). Supposedly, there's some sort of #FreeJahar movement out three that I don't understand at all, so I don't know whether Rolling Stone was trying to play into that or not. But this choice of photo and of context showed very bad judgment. It's too bad this guy didn't look like Osama bin Laden. Nobody ever tried to make him look like a rock star. Oh, and I almost forgot. Cue (a completely bombed) Dr. Hook: http://youtu.be/iH_npzCeg30
  5. My boys have Hebrew names, Isaac and Andrew. At least I think Andrew is Hebrew. The Biblical Andrew was a disciple
  6. That was Rick LaFavers; it was in 1995, and it assured us of two straight winning seasons for the first time since the '50s. We won 19-16 after Rick picked off SMU's two-point attempt with just seconds left on the clock and ran it back for two for us. That was, I believe, the season before overtime kicked in. SMU, admirably, went for the win instead of the tie. The stadium just came apart when Rick picked off that pass, which I believe was thrown by the infamous Derek Conine (or something like that) who later got kicked out of SMU for cheating and then briefly played for...TCU
  7. Oops, I didn't see this post and just posted a long rant on this myself. Yes, I think Rolling Stone is trying to romanticize this guy because he's good looking. And it's a terrible decision
  8. Yeesh, I'm glad they were living in France, then. Shit
  9. I got to tell that joke some years back going over the actual bridge where it happened. Truly one of the comedy highlights of my life
  10. I don't know that in my 39 years I've ever bought a copy of Rolling Stone, and I'm not sure I've ever gone to the Web site, either. I've never had much desire to live in 1969 or know which awful musical act I was supposed to idolize. So, if I say I'm boycotting Rolling Stone, that is to say that I'm continuing a boycott that probably wasn't going to end, anyway. But this cover with the marathon bomber on it is unacceptable and borderline disgusting. I'll tell you why. It's because Rolling Stone presents him like a rock star, with the young-Bob Dylan look, the bedroom eyes and the wispy cloud of hair. It's a picture the guy took of himself, but it's clearly a picture meant to make him look sexy, and Rolling Stone knows that. This guy and his brother (allegedly, I guess) plotted a mass murder, which fortunately wasn't as bad as it could have been. They killed a cop at point-blank range. There are people in this city right now without arms and legs because of what these brothers did. There are many, many more who have lost a sense of security. Rolling Stone, though, didn't use a photo of one of the victims, or a photo of this kid beaten and bloodied after being chased down by cops (although that might have been worse, actually). Nope, he got the rock star treatment, complete with a catchy cover line ("The Bomber"). That's what really angers me. Rolling Stone's cover has always been a spot for rock stars and other people we're supposed to somehow like or admire (except Charles Manson back in the '60s--also a poor choice). And this guy makes the cover looking like the latest thing in pop music, not like a terrorist. It's all about context. The shame of it all is that the article, which explores how a seemingly normal guy, an American citizen well-liked by most, got roped into doing what he did. It's probably an article we all need to read, and it's probably pretty well done. But I'm not going to read it because I don't want to endorse what Rolling Stone has done in any way. This is a desperate attempt by a fading magazine to try to get some publicity, and it has worked. It's pathetic, though, and it's a new low for the tawdry magazine business (a business I happen to be in myself). Supposedly, there's some sort of #FreeJahar movement out three that I don't understand at all, so I don't know whether Rolling Stone was trying to play into that or not. But this choice of photo and of context showed very bad judgment. It's too bad this guy didn't look like Osama bin Laden. Nobody ever tried to make him look like a rock star. Oh, and I almost forgot. Cue (a completely bombed) Dr. Hook: http://youtu.be/iH_npzCeg30
  11. Yeah, better him than me. He's a preacher. He has made a choice to spread the truth, even if it leads to suffering
  12. In France, I once saw a black family with twin boys. Both parents were black, but one of the twins was albino. He looked just like his brother, except he was white as a sheet. It was hard not to notice that. He wasn't mixed race, but he was whiter than I am. What would those who care so much about race do with that?
  13. A child who doesn't have a Jewish mother isn't Jewish. That's where a lot of the opposition to Jewish men marrying shiksas comes from. It's deeper than just racial or religious bias
  14. Hersey, Pa.? What's it like? Nice town? I don't like chocolate much, so I can't imagine I'd enjoy it. Just wondering. What do you think of Philly? Please make sure everyone there knows the Flyers suck. Thanks
  15. Some sad stories in that set of pictures
  16. There is, sadly, an immense amount of racism and anti-Semitism in France, as there is all over Europe. But then, although it doesn't justify racism, France was never set up to be a "melting pot." No nation in Europe was, really. And, again not justifying, if you look at racism in other parts of the developed world (Japan comes to mind), racism in Europe actually looks pretty mild
×
×
  • Create New...