I never wanted to be a model growing up. I never wanted to be an actress. I didn’t like fields where people would base their opinions on me based on looks or anything physical. My best asset is my wit, at least I think so. I’d rather be the clever girl than the pretty one. Prettiness can fade, but a certain level of cleverness will always be retained. Looks only take you so far; you need something in that little head of yours to really make it in whatever goes you have. Even models need a certain level of intelligence these days to create empires based in their images. You even have to credit Kim Kardashian (as much as we all kinda hate her) because she marketed herself and created this entire empire on nothing but looks and a sex tape.

I buy magazines. I admit a soft spot for Cosmo, because sometimes you need something brainless to sit and read. You learn interesting tidbits that you might get a great use out of in the real world. Like who would’ve known that you can order “roofie tester” coasters for when you go to a bar? I certainly didn’t and I appreciate the fantastic invention. Also it’s great to read those confession stories, because let’s be honest we all enjoy laughing at people. I even find myself seeing a funky make-up idea in there that I end up trying and looking terrible in because I lack any ability to do those girlie things. Sometimes I’ll buy magazines because I see the cover and say “I need that”. Usually I have this urge when it’s Game of Thrones related, and I have a Rolling Stone from over 10 years ago because it had Kurt Cobain on the cover and I do enjoy my Nirvana.

Then I hear about this latest covergirl. Sorry, I meant “coverboy”. Wait, is it “coverman”? I’ve got this: “coverterrorist”! I’d like to thank Rolling Stone for putting that terrorist on its cover. Seriously, it’s not every day you get to have the pleasure of being so disgusted at desperate attempts of stirring up controversy for the sake of sales. Or is it because the magazine is a dying medium and they needed a bump up? How about they make a Osama Bin Laden cover and talk about how he was misunderstood? I’m sure that would be an awesome read. I’m not sure critics are right about how this will validate him as a cult icon of teen angst and that everyone should go make bombs and kill innocent people because they don’t celebrate the same radical ideals as you. I’m absolutely sure that this is in incredibly poor taste. At first I thought they should donate the proceeds from their distasteful magazine to the One Fund. But then I decided that is almost like giving them blood money. No, they should do the world a favor and go with the Patriots model of “swap this magazine for one that is less evil”. Refund people’s money for running such a filthy edition, and reprint the entire thing with Jay-Z or Willie Nelson on the cover.

This is only part of the point. I don’t read Rolling Stone for human interest pieces, or in this case, Terrorist interest pieces. I read them for articles about music. Actually, that’s a lie. I don’t recall the last time I read a Rolling Stone magazine. I don’t even remember reading my decade or so old Kurt Cobain edition. I appreciate people using controversy in their publications. I find controversy to be thought-provoking and allows for a good debate. I think there’s a line you don’t cross though. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I think making victims of this horrible incident stare at one of the people responsible for their pain is completely disrespectful of this tragedy. We don’t want to pity him; we can honestly say we want his blood. You can feature him, but don’t try to make him out to be a misunderstood human being that is a victim of his circumstances. Plenty of people come from crappy circumstances don’t end up to be terrorists. Don’t defend him. We won’t pity him. Or maybe not show him and let him go away in oblivion because he no longer exists and shouldn’t be allowed to think he’s a martyr.