It is bad enough that the sacrifices of today’s servicemembers are trivialized by the media but now even the sacrifices of World War II veterans is being trivialized as well:

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.” [Business & Media Institute via Blackfive]

Make sure to read the whole thing but basically TIME magazine is trying to equate fighting Global Warming with fighting World War II.  This analogy is totally ridiculous to begin with considering the world has been cooling since 1998 especially this winter but that is besides the point.  The main point is that TIME magazine editors felt that it was fine to alter a iconic photograph that represented the sacrifices of the thousands of American servicemembers that not only died during the Battle of Iwo Jima where the photo was taken, but all the servicemembers that died in the Pacific theatre of the war. 

Ask yourself would the TIME magazine editors have altered a photograph of Martin Luther King with some tree with a message equating fighting Global Warming with fighting the civil rights movement in America?  This analogy is absurd as the one currently being presented by TIME magazine; so why should a cover trivializing the sacrifices of World War II servicemembers be acceptable but a cover trivializing the civil rights movement is not? 

Anyway, this is how TIME magazine has decided to defend itself:

“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.”

A point of view you say?  Well my point of view is that I’m not going to buy your crap magazine (not that I have bought their magazine in recent months anyway) and I encourage others to do so as well.  Ironically if everyone quits buying their magazine that would save the very trees they claim to be so concerned about.  So everyone do your part to combat global warming by not buying TIME magazine.