Kamak wrote:What does the cover matter if the content in the magazine is the same?
For one, the cover is the thing that jumps into your eye when looking at it in a shop.
I guess Americans don't like things criticizing America on their covers?
Americans don't like anybody criticizing anything about America. It was amazing hearing everyone just after 9/11 saying "If you don't like it, you can leave." As if picking up and moving to a different country is the easiest thing, not to mention most likely having to learn a second language which almost nobody does here.
The A in this case stands for Armageddon. As in, Armageddon a boner because this plane has a fucking HOWITZER sticking out of it.
So apparently people got shot on Black Friday both to get whatever they had and wallet/purse, a woman pepper-sprayed potential competitors so she could get an Xbox, and when one store decided not to do a midnight opening their customers broke in and stole a good chunk of their inventory.
Kamak wrote:What does the cover matter if the content in the magazine is the same?
The fact that they have to change the cover so much is a sign of the very different mentality in the US. That is what disturbs me. Time magazine can do whatever it wants with its' cover and content for all I care.
The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.
To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.
What the fuck? Europeans have been disgusted by the way the politicians and state have handled it so far and The Guardian thinks we can't see a breach of rights there?