Welcome fellow truth seekers!
We gather here today to mourn the passing of Time Magazine. For far too long we celebrated her glory, and as this fine young thing called the internet came into full flower, Time Magazine, (former beauty queen that she is), kept painting herself in the same signature cloths of impartiality, transparancy and accuracy.
Sure, she shortened her articles like young teen girls shortened their hemlines, trying to stay relevant in this world of instant news, and her tired cannards of class and elegance slowly gave way to the looks of a woman trying just a little too hard not to look older, her make up just a little too garish, her clothes just a little too tight. Instead of being that classy Lady of the Printed Press, she has been trying to reinvent herself as the next young thing… and all she needs to do is take a look at one Ms. Cicerone to know how sad and pointless that effort can appear.
But when did it begin? How did she go down this road of not aging gracefully, respectfully? In hindsight, looking back, I would point it to the issue of Time Magazine when it tried desperately to stay hip in a failed bid to explain the Ecstacy rave culture, and we wrote about this in a previous issue of Think Magazine… This is when she lost her class, read further for when she lost all self-respect…
Stop the presses… the ‘Rave Scene’ is now officially over…
At least that’s my take on it when the whole thing gets cover treatment in Time Magazine. My, but it only took them a dozen years to ‘discover’ clubbing and ecstacy, and in typically lame fashion they provide us with these insights;
“Simply defined, a rave is a party – often an all-night-long party – at which some form of electronic, or “techno” music is played."
Oh, God, it only gets stoopider: “Ravers often wear loose, wide-legged jeans that flair out at the bottom,” and “Apart from Moby, other deejays are increasingly in the limelight, including Paul van Dyk."
How could I fiqure it all out without Time? The article is so LATE and so OBVIOUS, I think they much have watched MTV for a decade and then decided what they were seeing is a trend.
Then it took only a couple more years to find a cop to say; “It appears that the ecstacy problem will eclipse the crack-cocaine problem we experienced in the late 1980’s."
Now I’m going to let you know when Time Magazine became completely irrelevant, and lost all respect, in much the way an old bar fly will let herself be abused by some bar thug because she’s starving for attention. I’m referring to the sell-out selection of Time Magazine’s 2010 Person of the Year, Mark Zuckerberg.
You see, for some reason, the public’s choice wasn’t good enough, that choice being the bad boy of truth Julian Assange, who actually did something ground breaking this year, which was basically to unmask the lies that another fading Grande Dame was using to betray the founding principles of Truth, Justice and Liberty. Something media USED to do…
Let’s try to think what Mr. Zuckerberg did in 2010 that was so game changing…. ummm… nothing? Facebook is hardly new, so those years when it WAS revolutionary are long gone. Who else was in the running, George Washington Carver for his ground breaking peanut butter invention?
No, what’s happened here folks was that a bunch of government thugs came in through the back entrance of the bar, ordered our ol’ gal to her knees and told her to start sucking. And that’s why Time Magazine sucks and Mark Zuckerberg is our man of the year instead.