|As close to Jesus as Rolling Stone gets. 1971.|
I’m not a life-long fan of Rolling Stone magazine. I’m not here to defend a Rock&Roll magazine that dabbles in politics and analysis of mainstream culture. I’m here to defend any magazine that is kicked off store shelves because Corporate Headquarters is offended.
In this case, Corporate Headquarters (CVS, Walgreens, 7-Eleven) is worried that the August 2013 Rolling Stone cover romanticizes unexpected Islamic terrorism on American soil. Corporate Headquarters believes that we Americans shouldn’t have to wade through densely printed articles that describe the complicated national and personal milieu that pushed yet another young male into a convoluted justification of mass murder.
We may rightly ask: Why feature this young male mass murderer and not all the other Caucasian/Non-Muslim young male mass murderers we can choose from disturbingly recent history, who have killed far more American citizens in one fell swoop than this team of brothers?
?Maybe because Rolling Stone is less concerned about the backlash from bomb right supporters than gun right supporters in the US? In that case… the August 2013 cover is evidence of a lack of backbone.
|1970 Charles Manson|
?Maybe because Rolling Stone figured that it’s time they acknowledge the scourge of young men who snap and kill, or attempt to kill, multitudes of innocent American citizens for the heck of it? But in this case, the brothers don’t quite meet the pattern of diagnosable mental illness as a precursor to the murders.
?Maybe because Rolling Stone hasn’t found a good reason yet to point out all the home-grown terrorists, like we have here in Minnesota among the Somali community… who after being frustrated with the difficulties of assimilating into pasty white Lutheranism, are suckered into a cultish version of Islam that encourages them to go back to their home countries and blow up themselves and others? I had a hard time writing that question… so I can only imagine Rolling Stone would have a hard time writing that article.
|1975 Patty Hearst with submachine gun in artist riffing on Wyeth's "Christina's World"|
?Maybe because Rolling Stone discovered that putting an SLA brain-washed terrorist heiress on the cover in 1975 did NOT create an epidemic of brain-washed terrorist heiresses? Paris Hilton and the Kardashians don’t count.
|1978 The Economy|
?Maybe… because Rolling Stone doesn’t give a shit what Corporate Headquarters thinks about who they choose to write about or place on their cover? Dear Jesus… please let this be the right answer?!!!!
And it is… because we all know… or used to know… that Corporate Headquarters is exactly who good journalism shouldn’t give a shit about. For that matter, should good journalism give a shit about stepping on the toes of a nation in shock, in mourning, or just selectively numb?
Does the outcry against the August 2013 Rolling Stone cover suggest that America is no longer numb to violence… or does it suggest that while we are okay with all sorts of stupidity taking place among our citizens we can’t get past the shallow perception that being on a cover of a magazine suggests absolution from all sin?
In that case, the Catholic Church should be in good shape.
My beef: That certain Corporate Headquarters have decided that we Americans, when faced with an in-depth article regarding a home-grown killer, all we can handle is the initial, perhaps confusing, reaction to a semi-handsome face on the cover of a sex, drugs and rock&roll magazine. We can’t process anything beyond that initial reaction… which might be confusion for some, anger for others, curiosity for many, or ironic, bitter laughter from others.
So Many Emotions!!!!
Here’s where my Hot4Jesus expertise comes in handy. I grew up in a household inundated by conservative Christian radio and magazines which constantly told its listeners and readers what kind of pop culture it should or shouldn’t consume (my family consumed NO pop culture, which was an anomaly in the 1980s).
These conservative Christian media outlets had no qualms about suggesting where not to buy things based on how corporate headquarters stood on things like abortion, women’s lib, divorce, pre-marital sex, rock&roll, Reagan, etc. They provided easy to consume lists of who to send your complaints to, where not to shop, what not to buy.
(Yes... the hipppies did this too.)
So I’ve been itching for an old-fashioned reason to boycott someone about something and here it is: For the month of August (starting as soon as I read about it last week in mid-July), I am boycotting the stores that are boycotting the Rolling Stones cover.
Why? Because two can play this pathetic and demeaning and nearly pointless game. I normally shop at CVS, because it is most convenient, not because I want to. I’ve already spent $30 dollars of my paycheck I normally would have spent at the nearest CVS ($30 is a lot to me) elsewhere this week. And I thought you and CVS and Rolling Stone might want to know.
And no… I’m not Muslim. To me Islam is as much about the gospel of peace as Christianity is about the gospel of love… all depends on what pew you’re sitting in.
It’s a silly little personal boycott, but one thing you learn from being versed in boycotts at a young age is not only do you boycott a place of business, but you let the entity you are boycotting KNOW you are boycotting them.
CVS: consider yourself and your sad little BigBrother Insulting Bullshit NOTIFIED.
|Back when the Apocalypse almost happened: 1969|
It is obvious to me that no one on the staff at corporate headquarters for CVS, Walgreens, etc., is a librarian or well-versed in librarian philosophy which boils down to the following: When one group of human brains decide what other groups of human brains can handle and process and thus start censoring what people can look at or read… well… it’s what is called a "Slippery Slope"… and Damned Hypocritical. (Check out CVS’ collection of steamy romance novels or the cover of the Sports Illustrated Issue… which yes… some libraries have to hide behind the desk for fear of confiscation).
So, because I’m well-versed in library philosophy, and because this blog is here because of freedom of speech, and because we all love to hate on corporations now and then, and because I like to share when my upbringing backfires, I will continue to NOT spend my hard-earned money at the places that belittle the emotions and brains of the people who shop there.
You’re free to join me, but like any killer/ rock star… I don’t give a shit what you think about all of this :)
(For those still waiting for it: The Terrorists Win if Corporate America is afraid of the selfie of a impressionable young man, regardless of how many lives he ruined.)