Power Line News

This is just beyond the pale:

Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time’s ‘Special Environmental Issue’ Cover

Time editor tells MSNBC ‘there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.’

By Jeff Poor

Business & Media Institute
4/18/2008 9:40:43 AM

For only the second time in 85 years, Time magazine abandoned the traditional red border it uses on its cover. The occasion – to push more global warming alarmism.

The cover of the April 21 issue of Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree. The cover story by Bryan Walsh calls green “the new red, white and blue.”

Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”

<snip>

http://tinyurl.com/6dnjt6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What the HELL is wrong with those people!

An American icon used for cheap, alarmist, political commentary?

Good Lord ... We’re doomed.

.

The entire article:

Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time’s ‘Special Environmental Issue’ Cover

Time editor tells MSNBC ‘there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.’

By Jeff Poor

Business & Media Institute
4/18/2008 9:40:43 AM

For only the second time in 85 years, Time magazine abandoned the traditional red border it uses on its cover. The occasion – to push more global warming alarmism.

The cover of the April 21 issue of Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree. The cover story by Bryan Walsh calls green “the new red, white and blue.”

Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”

“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”

Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.

“The second world war we knew was there,” Mates said. “There’s a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isn’t. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.”

According to the American Veterans Center (AVC), Mates served in the 3rd Marine Division and fought in the battle of Iwo Jima, landing on Feb. 24, 1945.

“A few days later, Mates’ eight-man patrol came under heavy assault from Japanese forces,” Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the AVC, said. “During fierce-hand-to-hand combat, Mates watched as his friend and fellow Marine, Jimmy Trimble, was killed in front of his eyes. Mates was severely wounded, and underwent repeated operations for shrapnel removal for over 30 years.”

Lt. John Keith Wells, the leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi and co-author of “Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima” wasn’t impressed with Time’s efforts.

“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,” Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”

Time managing editor Richard Stengel appeared on MSNBC April 17 and said the United States needed to make a major effort to fight climate change, and that the cover’s purpose was to liken global warming to World War II.

“[O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change,” Stengel said. “It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, ‘Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that.’ I don’t understand why they don’t do that.”

Holbert, speaking on behalf of the American Veterans Center, said the editorial decision by Time to use the photograph for the cover trivialized the cause the veterans fought for.

“Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States,” Holbert said. “The Japanese Empire in February of 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history.  War analogies should be used sparingly by political advocates of all bents.”

Stengel also appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on April 17 and had no difficulty admitting the magazine needed to have a “point of view.”

“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let’s just say so.”

Time has been banging the global warming drum for some time now. In April 2007, Time offered 51 ways to “save the planet,” which included more taxes and regulation.

(end)

<sigh>

Now now, Rocketman.  Whether you believe it or not, global warming is real.  Virtually everyone, including the world scientific community, agrees on that.  The only issue is to what extent it’s caused by human activity.  In other words, is global warming anthropogenic, or is it not?  The answer to that question will determine what measures we should take, but we have to take some measures in any case.  And what’s at stake, ultimately, might be as great or even greater than what was at stake in WW2. 

To dramatize the importance of all this, TIME took a symbol of WW2 and cleverly refashioned it.  But it’s not a parody, it’s not poking fun at anything—quite the opposite.  Given the gravity of the climate-change situation, I don’t think it shows any disrespect to the valiant soldiers at Iwo Jima at all.

Really, some people just enjoy getting themselves all agitated. That’s what puts bread on the table of Michael Savage and Russ Limbaugh. “What? We don’t have anything to be outraged about? Well, find something, darn it!” For an extra laugh, google “Businness and Media Institute.”

Actually, Rocket Roy only liked this story because of this part:

“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,” Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”

Whenever you see a right-winger, there’s sure to be somebody sticking something up somebody’s rear close by.

pitlesspeach: “To dramatize the importance of all this, TIME took a symbol of WW2 and cleverly refashioned it.  But it’s not a parody, it’s not poking fun at anything—quite the opposite.  Given the gravity of the climate-change situation, I don’t think it shows any disrespect to the valiant soldiers at Iwo Jima at all.”

Is NOTHING sacred to you people?

Do you have any idea what happened to those men who raised that flag?  Do you even CARE?

If you want to argue “global warming”, do it elsewhere.  THIS is about the cheapening of an American icon and the horrendous sacrifice it took to plant that flag.  Not that YOU or your people know or give a damn.

vlad estrogen: “Really, some people just enjoy getting themselves all agitated. That’s what puts bread on the table of Michael Savage and Russ Limbaugh. “What? We don’t have anything to be outraged about? Well, find something, darn it!” For an extra laugh, google “Businness and Media Institute.”

“Google" THIS, ########.

SOME of us don’t need a radio entertainer to instill in us a sense of outrage over the cheap use of an icon that represents the best that America has to offer.  Not that YOU would understand such sacrifice.

.

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  Unlike the cross or a rendering of the madonna and child, for example, the Iwo Jima photo is not a religious icon, is not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

[edited]

As a former Marine, I’m not as up in arms about this as I’m sure a lot of my fellow Marines surely are - the image and story of Iwo Jima are simply too great to let anything belittle it - but this is silly beyond words. More scorn than outrage from where I’m sitting.

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 01:41 PM

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  It’s not a religious icon, it’s not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

It must really suck to be you.

.

Rocketman ~(Ä)~ - 18 April 2008 01:47 PM

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 01:41 PM

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  It’s not a religious icon, it’s not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

It must really suck to be you.

.

Actually, Rocket, my life is quite good.  I’d certainly rather be me than that close-minded guy in the photo (is that you?).

TASTE.  Time magazine lacks taste; they are wanting a sense of decorum — of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.  They are, in short, a bunch of half-educated Lefties, much like IB.

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 12:23 PM

Now now, Rocketman.  Whether you believe it or not, global warming is real.  Virtually everyone, including the world scientific community, agrees on that.  The only issue is to what extent it’s caused by human activity.  In other words, is global warming anthropogenic, or is it not?  The answer to that question will determine what measures we should take, but we have to take some measures in any case.  And what’s at stake, ultimately, might be as great or even greater than what was at stake in WW2. 

To dramatize the importance of all this, TIME took a symbol of WW2 and cleverly refashioned it.  But it’s not a parody, it’s not poking fun at anything—quite the opposite.  Given the gravity of the climate-change situation, I don’t think it shows any disrespect to the valiant soldiers at Iwo Jima at all.

It may be real, but we didn’t cause it and we can’t fix it.  Go ahead, keep cleaning the air and the rivers and lakes.  Plant a few million trees if you want.  It won’t matter and GW is never going to be as bad as the alarmists are screeching.

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 01:41 PM

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  Unlike the cross or a rendering of the madonna and child, for example, the Iwo Jima photo is not a religious icon, is not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

[edited]

As far as the Marine Corps goes, this photograph and what it represents is ‘sacred’.  From a non-Marine perspective, it might not seem important, but in an organization as proud of it’s traditions as the Corps, this photograph exemplifies the courage, sacrifice and devotion to brother Marines that is required to prevail under difficult circumstances.  To have it cheapened by some sort of advertising gimmick is wrong.  I wonder how TIME magazine would react if someone took the Zapruder film and photoshopped it to sell Lincoln Continentals.

I wonder how TIME magazine would react if someone took the Zapruder film and photoshopped it to sell Lincoln Continentals.

Or worse, if some comedian on TV used for a schtick about a feud with a baseball player.

nevada56 - 18 April 2008 05:54 PM

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 01:41 PM

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  Unlike the cross or a rendering of the madonna and child, for example, the Iwo Jima photo is not a religious icon, is not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

[edited]

As far as the Marine Corps goes, this photograph and what it represents is ‘sacred’.  From a non-Marine perspective, it might not seem important, but in an organization as proud of it’s traditions as the Corps, this photograph exemplifies the courage, sacrifice and devotion to brother Marines that is required to prevail under difficult circumstances.  To have it cheapened by some sort of advertising gimmick is wrong.  I wonder how TIME magazine would react if someone took the Zapruder film and photoshopped it to sell Lincoln Continentals.

I can understand how this photograph carries great importance to Marines, nevada56, as it does to American society more generally (myself included, as my own father fought in the Pacific).  I am simply disputing the notion that it is a holy object.  The word sacred means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity...Worthy of religious veneration… Made or declared holy… etc.” To apply the word sacred to something that is not religious or holy is to demean the word itself and the world of religious faith.  Is that what you want to do?

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 07:42 PM

nevada56 - 18 April 2008 05:54 PM

impeachbush - 18 April 2008 01:41 PM

No, Rocket, for all the bravery and nobility of sacrifice that photo evokes, it’s not sacred.  Unlike the cross or a rendering of the madonna and child, for example, the Iwo Jima photo is not a religious icon, is not an object of worship—or at least it isn’t to most people.

[edited]

As far as the Marine Corps goes, this photograph and what it represents is ‘sacred’.  From a non-Marine perspective, it might not seem important, but in an organization as proud of it’s traditions as the Corps, this photograph exemplifies the courage, sacrifice and devotion to brother Marines that is required to prevail under difficult circumstances.  To have it cheapened by some sort of advertising gimmick is wrong.  I wonder how TIME magazine would react if someone took the Zapruder film and photoshopped it to sell Lincoln Continentals.

I can understand how this photograph carries great importance to Marines, nevada56, as it does to American society more generally (myself included, as my own father fought in the Pacific).  I am simply disputing the notion that it is a holy object.  The word sacred means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity...Worthy of religious veneration… Made or declared holy… etc.” To apply the word sacred to something that is not religious or holy is to demean the word itself and the world of religious faith.  Is that what you want to do?

I’ll concede the point on the literal meaning of ‘sacred’, perhaps that word is a bit high-handed for this discussion.  My point is that the photograph is held in high esteem and did not need to be denigrated with the addition of that stupid tree in order to sell magazines.  Three of those flag-raisers, Strank, Block and Sousley did not survive Iwo Jima and using their photograph to illuminate a story on ‘global-warming’ is a mockery of their personal sacrifice.  Traditions in the military and many other groups in our world run deep and so often, the uninitiated have no idea what these traditions are about or their importance.  A few years ago, a friend of mine gave my son and I a tour of the Air Force Academy where he was instructing.  While we were walking through one area, I noticed all the cadets snapping off salutes as they passed a painting on the wall.  My friend then explained that the cadets had a tradition of saluting the portrait of Captain Lance Sijan, the first AFA grad to be awarded the Medal of Honor.  To some this might seem odd or silly, but I could easily see how this small recognition of Captain Sijan’s selflessness and fortitude would positively impact every cadet.  TIME was wrong to use this photograph, it’s context is quite removed from the subject of their article.

Now Why ...

Would a clueless radical left-winger like yerself pitlesspeach try to side track the discussion and focus on semantics?

The Raising ...

Of that flag WAS “sacred”.  It gave THOUSANDS of mud marines the confidence that they too just might make it through the battle as their comrades atop Suribachi did.  The flag signalled to the ships off shore that that the high ground had been won.  That is BOTH iconic AND sacred.

If you had any decency, you would simply keep your pie hole shut or agree that distorting the image was in bad taste.  We’ve come to expect quite the opposite from you however, thus we are not the least bit surprised you would quibble with a simple word.

.