National Review heralds the ‘wonderland’ of tar sands with a photo of a blighted hellscape

[marmar]

http://grist.org/list/national-review-heralds-the-wonderland-of-tar-sands-with-a-photo-of-a-blighted-hellscape/

from Grist:


National Review heralds the ‘wonderland’ of tar sands with a photo of a blighted hellscape
By Jess Zimmerman




National Review is not the worst conservative rag out there — it’s like the Daily Caller after it aged 10 years, bought a suit, stopped doing coke, and had to live through an uncomfortable coming-out conversation with its college buddy. But it sure prints some dumb BS (I’m just dying to hear what the editors say about “Marriage and the Court,” NOT). Still, this is the first time I’ve seen the magazine run a cover that literally looks like a Photoshop someone mocked up to make everyone on the masthead look like assholes.

If some closet liberal in the design department isn’t trolling the National Review editors with this, then National Review is definitely trolling us. “Go ahead,” it’s saying. “We DARE you liberal reactionary ninnies of the press to tell us this isn’t a photo of a beautiful, idyllic miracle wonderland.” Honestly, though, I totally support its contention that the tar sands represent a many-splendored bower of bliss. Go live there, guys! Live there in pastoral ease and leisure! Jealousy guard your miracle home against minorities and illegal immigrants! You deserve it. We will just wait here in our inferior non-wonderland and feel really, really jealous.

[zbdent]

1. Reminds me of my home area ...

the strip-mining, that is ...

[LeftInTX]

2. It looks the Onion, but it isn't....

How awful. At least when they show oil wells in Texas, they like to show one arm bandits in pretty fields with blue bonnets and cattle surrounding them, to soften the image.

This pic is about as pleasant as showing the BP oil spill and calling it, "The miracle of oil".

[hatrack]

3. Maybe it's just some coiled, self-loathing form of hippie-punching . . . .

Or some "more ironic than thou" attempt at post-modern hipness (though I used the suffix "-modern" advisedly in the case of National Review.)