Debunking the Threat (#2)

            When I received the November 12 issue of Rolling Stone, I skimmed through, reading the cover story on Shakira and wondering what warped view of reality would be presented in this issue’s Threat Assessment. I found the answer to my pondering on pages 40 and 41. Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest threat to America for the week prior to November 12 was… a Halloween costume. No joke. “Target peddles ‘illegal alien’ Halloween costume” is listed as the worst thing on the Threat Assessment. Not “Cable stations fall for balloon boy hoax.” Not “U.S. pays $400 a gallon for gas in Afghanistan. Not even “Chubby four-month-old denied health coverage for obesity.” No, the largest problem was a Halloween costume consisting of a space alien clad in an orange jumpsuit printed with the words “ILLEGAL ALIEN” and holding a green card. I think most (rational) people would realize that this costume is intended to be FUNNY, based on the fact that inside the jumpsuit one finds not a Mexican, but a Martian. It’s a politically incorrect play on words that leaves RS offended and leaves me believing that RS has no sense of humor.

            The runner-up, #2 threat was “Superfreakonomics pushes junk science about ‘global cooling.’” I take several issues with the addition of this item to the Threat Assessment (and no, I have not read the book). 1) There are dozens of scientists who maintain that man is not the main cause of “climate change,” regardless of the direction the thermometer mercury moves. 2) In the 1970’s, there was panic over a possible “New Ice Age.” Thirty years later, we’re panicking again, but in the opposite direction. 3) We just had one of the coolest summers on record. In fact, the average global temperature has been DROPPING over the last decade. So, maybe it’s not junk science if the globe really is cooling. (http://www.countingcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/uah_may_08.png) 4) One of the co-authors of Superfreakonomics, Steven D. Levitt, went on The Daily Show and stated that he had no intention of breaking from the global warming dogma, and that his book did not prove that the earth was cooling. He was merely discussing the economics of the science surrounding climate change.

            So, what was RS happy about on the Threat Assessment? “Legalizing pot more popular than creationism.” Oh man, get me a bucket so I can collect the Nihilism dripping out of this magazine. Also a popular item was “NFL blocks Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy St. Louis rams.” Why this matters, I have no idea. The man can’t make the Rams vote conservative, and he probably doesn’t really care to. It was just a business venture. NFL, you are standing in the way of capitalism (and RS, you are ridiculous for being excited about it). The least threatening, best item? The most “with us” piece of news for Rolling Stone, November 12 issue? RS won a Cover of the Year award for their cover featuring Barack Obama. No, not the blatant Superman pose (see it here: http://www.foliomag.com/files/images/rolling_stone_obama.jpg). This is the one they got the award for: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/media_bias_img/obama_rs_cover.jpg

            Let’s recap: Anything that could be considered “politically incorrect” is a threat. Anything that even APPEARS to challenge established liberal dogma is a threat. Anything that undermines Christianity or traditional values is awesome. Barack Obama is the Son of God. Any questions?

Verifcation: Rolling Stone, November 12, 2009, Issue 1091, p. 40-41

Debunking the Threat (#1)

            My husband and I, through a combination of gifts, cheap offers from TicketMaster, and cashing in on MyCokeRewards, have acquired a vast collection of magazine subscriptions. One of the publications that we subscribe to is Rolling Stone; a magazine I tend to disagree with politically almost 100%. In nearly every issue, RS publishes a “Threat Assessment” at the bottom of their political story for the issue. If you are unfamiliar with the Threat Assessment, these are the basics: across the bottom of 2 pages lies a political continuum. On the left, things RS considers “good” and “with us” (read: liberal), portrayed with a blue arrow. On the right lie the things RS considers “bad” or “against us,” AKA conservative, portrayed with a red arrow. Items on the “with us” side do not have to be celebrations of a liberal victory – they can also be celebrations of conservative failures. Whether or not the things portrayed on the “against us” side are ACTUALLY conservative is not the point. If it involves a Republican, something that goes against the Obamessiah, or is otherwise contrary to a progressive mindset, it is automatically “conservative” and, therefore, bad.

            As I perused my first issue of RS from October 29, 2009, I came across the Threat Assessment for the issue. After reading it, I have come to the conclusion that the priorities of those who run the iconic music magazine are SERIOUSLY out of whack. Listed on the “with us” side is this little gem of distressing information: “Only 2.8 percent of Oklahoma high school students would pass U.S. citizenship test.” Apparently RS wants our high school students to remain uninformed about the government and ignorant of their rights. At least, that is what the positioning of this fact on the continuum would suggest.

            The “against us” side of the continuum is far more distressing, and a much stronger indicator of whacked-out priorities. What could be worse than a 9.8% unemployment rate? What could be more unsettling than Mein Kampf manga raking in the money in Japan? What’s more outrageous than a Facebook poll asking “Should Obama be killed?” CLEARLY, Sarah Palin and the loss of the Chicago Olympics trump all of these issues as immediate pressing threats, at least according to RS.

            I see several major problems with this: 1) People publicly questioning whether Obama should be killed seems like a pretty big threat to me. I don’t like the man, and I don’t agree with his policies, but Lord knows no rational American wants the President of the United States to be killed. Good grief. 2) Our unemployment rate is now over 10%. Detroit is literally drying up and blowing away. States with tourism-based economies like Nevada and Florida are suffering because people can’t afford to take vacations. I would say that, if this trend continues (and it WILL get worse before it gets better), this is a pretty huge threat. 3) Sarah Palin no longer holds a public office. She is not a governor, a vice president, or a judge. She has not been appointed to any official positions. How can the publication of her book, an autobiography about her life before politics and during the McCain campaign, be a larger threat than massive unemployment and questions about assassinating the president? 4) Out of all of these things, why is “Conservatives cheer[ing] Chicago’s Olympics loss” the most threatening? Records have shown that the Olympics traditionally cost cities more in preparation and construction than they make in revenue from the Games. It really wasn’t a huge loss for Chicago, just an embarrassment for Obama, which explains why RS feels so threatened by it.

            Rolling Stone cannot handle an opinion different from their own, despite their claims about loving diversity. This is why they feel threatened by Palin. They also cannot stand the thought of their precious savior being embarrassed or contradicted, which is why they feel threatened by the Olympics loss and, more broadly, anything that proves immune to Obama’s golden touch.

For verification of what I’ve stated here, see Rolling Stone, issue 1090, October 29, 1009, p. 42-43.

            This is the first in what will surely be an ongoing series of blogs about the ridiculosity (yeah, I just used a made-up word) of the “Threat Assessment.”