Time Magazine recently put this as their cover:
No, no! Up, stupid! We’re putting it- Stop pulling down!
That’s right, somehow a fucking tree inserted itself into the symbolic picture of the second flag raising at Iwo Jima. Marine veterans are not happy.
Donald “Donnie-Don-Donz” Mates called the cover “an absolute disgrace.” He added to this by saying “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin.” Yes, I believe Vatican Law does say something about that picture… Donzie-Dingo-Don also said it was sacrilegious to stick a tree in place of the flag. I can see why: the American flag doesn’t look anything like a tree. Now, if it was the Lebanese flag, well…
Below: The Flag of Lebanon
Putting a tree in the place of this just makes it seem more realistic.
Sadly, Lebanese troops did not seize the island from the Imperial Japanese Army. Had they done so, we could be avoiding all of this controversy right now.
Dondie-Donda-Dodon was not the only ex-Marine who was a bit peeved about the cover. John Keith Wells, who lead the platoon that put up the flag, said global warming was the biggest joke he’s ever heard. I can’t believe he said that. I’ve heard the global warming joke a thousand times; the punchline sucked the first time I heard it, and it has sucked more with each subsequent retelling. But I digress. Wells added that he would “stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think it’s going to cure something.” That sounds like rape/forcible sodomy. Check!
Another ex-Marine and Iwo Jima veteran said “I am cancelling my subscription to Time Magazine ungrateful bastards [sic].” Another said “This crap you have on your magazine; you can put it where the sun does not shine.” That is very polite, I must point out.
Finally, one vet came out and said what all these elderly warriors (and indeed, what all the elderly folk in general) are thinking, by calling out those no-good punksters of the younger generation who don’t care about anything other than running amok of this and that. “As a veteran who was at Iwo Jima before, during and after the invasion, I think anything about the World War should be off-limits to any form of non military promotion or advertisement, especially by any of the present generation of spoiled people few of who appreciate the services and sacrifices of the relatively few of that generation.”
Yeah, man, totally. I also believe that free speech is okay as long as it doesn’t mess with something that I care about. Once it does, then other people should lose the right to freely express ideas about the things I care about, until I die that is. Unless it’s used for military propaganda, that’s cool. Oh yeah, and I also don’t care about the sacrifices made by past generations. For instance, I could give a fuck less about Alexander the Great beating back the armies of Persia and conquering most of the known world, which then let Greek ideas expand and grow without impending outside threats, and therefore influence future nations like Rome, Byzantium, and many of today’s western democracies. But then again I don’t suppose a lot of people appreciate Alexander’s efforts. Fuck Alexander the Great. Let’s get some paintings of him and put lots of trees in them. [Alexander the Great fucked guys.]
That was half-sarcasm, half-sincerity. You figure it out.
I can’t wait to be an old veteran so I can just say whatever I want. If anybody calls me out on it, I can just say they’re unpatriotic, disrespectful, and full of shit because by then I’ll obviously be very wise, in contrast to the younger generation that will by then be running the world.
Soooo…. Well, it’s obvious that people are unhappy. Will Time Magazine issue an apology? Answer: No. Hmm, that does seem a bit harsh. See, you just can’t tell somebody, “Don’t worry – You do not find this to be offensive.” So, Time Magazine editor Richard Stengel, if you didn’t mean to offend these veterans, you should probably say something like “Our intent was [blah blah blah] and we deeply regret if anyone was offended by this.” I don’t imagine it will necessarily make it okay by them, but at least you’re EXPRESSING REGRET. Instead, Stengel said, “There needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change.”
Of course, when Stengel says “World War II”, I have to think that he means the global military conflicted that involved the mobilization of over 100 million military personnel, resulted in over 60 million people killed (most costly war in history in terms of lives lost), cost over one trillion 1944 US Dollars (most costly anything in history in terms of money spent), and plunged the majority of the world’s nations into a state of total war, where all of a nation’s economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities are used only for the purposes of the war effort. Now that is a run-on sentence.
So should we, and indeed the rest of the world, wage total war against global warming? Should all of our endeavors focus on one thing, the annihilation and unconditional surrender of an intangible enemy? Let the sickly and the weak, the old and the young alike, and indeed the welfare of those who cannot fight for themselves, all be damned!
It kind of sounds like both extremes are a little, well, extreme. It really sounds that way when I paraphrase it.
Note: Time’s cover would also be acceptable if students from Stanford
University had succesfully landed at and secured the island of Iwo Jima.