I wasn't feeling good yesterday, and now I feel really bad. In any event, I'm swiping this post from Brad's blog since I don't have the energy to do my own post.
I was going to say something about Jahar being on the cover of Rolling Stone, but he beat me to it. Why reinvent the wheel, right? Apparently, there is a "Free Jahar" movement, and it' mostly made up of women.
I guess there's the old stereotype of women who like a "bad boy" type, but does that really go all the way to terrorism?
Yes, he's a monster, but what dreamy eyes! /sigh
Maybe it's because he's in jail, and he's unattainable. Who knows? I kind of thought that stopped at the guy who cut class in high school, or the guy who was in a band rather than working in an office job. Either way, I don't think there's a male analog to this. I can't remember any attractive female criminals with a male following.
Then there's the whole other issue of Rolling Stone glorifying the guy. Terrorist as a rock/culture icon? That's pretty sick. I would expect this from some Al-Quaeda magazine that is trying to glorify his violence and recruit more terrorists, not Rolling Stone. Maybe they're trying to come up with a new, modern version of Che. I hear he killed people and had soulful eyes as well.
It reminds me of the Tom Wolfe piece about "Radical Chic".
Whatever the reason, if you're part of the "Free Jahar" movement, you're stupid.
I wonder how this will play in Boston.
ReplyDeleteAppearances are shallow. The cliche that beauty is only skin deep is true only when appearance is concerned. True beauty and true ugliness are soul deep.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most about political correctness is that is only about the surface and more often than not disguises ugliness.