Rolling Stone's turning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev into a dreamy-eyed cover boy is an indication of the liberal societal tendency to turn evil into good.  Twenty years ago, the hip-hop culture redefined bad as cool.

Left-wing philosophy suspends all values and reminds us that antagonistic liberalism would sooner turn reality on its head and advocate a killer as if he were a saint.  This is indigenous to the liberal mind, which depends on contrarian thinking and reversing values so that going against the grain of tradition is a mark of mock intellect.  To a Democrat, it is a fault to agree with historical ideas, while criticism of them is considered Ivy League-type intelligence.  It is what we did during the Vietnam War when we criticized the military-industrial complex even though few of us knew much about the genesis of that war.

And yet Rolling Stone feels superior to conservatives in its distortion of reality.  Those of us who object to Dzhokhar's prettified photo are just uptight conservatives.  Why should a little thing like mass murder interfere with our appreciation of Dzhokhar?  Liberal publications like Rolling Stone specialize in going against the grain of societal values and making a beast into a hero. They accuse us of being bigoted towards Islamic terrorists like that wouldn't be an intelligent judgment.

It's precisely the aggrandizement of Dzhokhar that encourages terrorism.  It's time the mob turned against terror and encouraged love and peace. Glorifying beasts leads to mass destruction.

If I were one of the legless victims of the Boston Marathon, I would certainly not be reading Rolling Stone.  No wonder so many stores refuse to carry it.  I'd be asking myself if this glorification of mass murderers is the reason I can't walk.  Is our licentious culture the cause of characters like Dzhokhar running around blowing people up?

The Rolling Stone editor says, "The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young ... makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens." 

The editor is using Dzhokhar's youth as an excuse for insanity.  Is he serious, or is he just trying to justify his use of a Jim Morrison-type photo?  How does slapping a beauty-boy picture of Dzhokhar on the cover of Rolling Stone examine complexities?  How does his picture give us "a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens"?

We learn nothing from Rolling Stone's misguided cover, except that terror-friendly articles should not be promoted and that we should turn against the horror.  At least Kurtz came out of the jungle in Heart of Darkness recognizing the horror.  Rolling Stone glorifies it.  It is a slap in the face...after the face has been blown up.