Jimmy Fallon looks like guy from Just one of the Guys

Jimmy Fallon looks like the Girl/guy from the 80's movie, Just One of The Guys

  -Jimmy Fallon

- Girl/guy from Just One of The Guys, played by Joyce Hyser

Buzzfeed Friend's Quizzes

I'm a big fan of Friends, so it stands to reason that I would be a big fan of the Buzzfeed quizzes for Friends, even though they are forgettable the moment you get the results.  Here are a few I think you'll enjoy my friends.

Character Soulmate- http://www.buzzfeed.com/krystieyandoli/which-friends-character-is-your-soulmate

Fan Quiz- http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/how-big-of-a-friends-fan-are-you-really#44tl1n8

Which Character are you- http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/which-friends-character-are-you

Who said it- http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/which-friends-character-said-it

Roommate- http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasmaiuppin/friends-character-should-be-your-roommate#44tl1n8

Cuba Gooding Jr. looks like Terrence Howard

- Cuba Gooding Jr.



- Terrence Howard

Dzhokahr Tsarnaev and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Dzhokahr Tsarnaev and the Sorcerer’s Stone

                Rolling Stone, an entertainment and music magazine, published a cover story many in America have deemed despicable and insensitive, with a photo depicting Dzhokar Tsarnaev in a positive and “rock star”-like image.  People in a free market system determine if a product is worthy of sale.  With over one million subscribers, Rolling Stone is seen as worthy by a large segment of the American population.  Many others, though, have decided not to subscribe to the publication, and they have every right to do so.  Is Rolling Stone so systematically important to the American public’s way of life that if its existence were to cease, American journalism would collapse?  Probably not, but the point still stands that over one million people have decided to pay a price for the publication.

                So what does Rolling Stone owe to the general public?  As a paid magazine owned wholly by a private enterprise, they owe absolutely nothing. They only need to satisfy the subscribers who paid to receive the magazine.  Why, then, have people made such a commotion?   Perhaps it is justified.  The event in which Dzhokar was allegedly involved was a public event.  It tragically took American citizens’ lives and has opened a public security can of worms. It was a terrible and unnecessary act of terrorism.  Yet, it is still Rolling Stone’s prerogative, protected by the First Amendment, to report the news in any way it pleases under the written law.  As long as all information was collected legally, is in fact true, and is not a threat to national security, then the U.S. government ought not to have a hand in the business of Rolling Stone. 

                Rolling Stone, originally conceived as a magazine to report on the music industry, has in recent years tried to change its image, and in some cases has succeeded.  An example would be in June of 2010, when Rolling Stone reported on General Stanley McChrystal’s criticism of the White House, specifically Vice President Joe Biden, among others on Capitol Hill.  General McChrystal later resigned.  Still, has the magazine gone too far this time?  Kristen Powers of Newsweek and The Daily Beast sure thought so, calling the piece “terrible” and “kind of sick” while commentating on Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor.  Mr. O’Reilly conjectured that they did it merely for publicity, which of course they received in full. 

                This issue has proved polarizing, however, as the New York Times editorial board has taken a different point of view, saying in jest that the “hysteria” must have been “heat-wave induced.” In actuality, the New York Times defended Rolling Stone’s journalistic integrity.  One website, Slate.com, a news site owned by the Washington Post Company, went as far as to call it “brilliant,” which was perceived by some as going too far left on the political spectrum.     

It will be up to the consumer to decide if what Rolling Stone did it is worthy of a read.  Many national brands such as CVS and Walgreens, both pharmacies, have decided to not carry this particular issue, and as private enterprises, they have every right to do so.  One Boston resident even went so far as to call for a mass burning of the magazine.  While that would clearly help sales, his sentiment is duly noted. Perhaps many view it as a moral issue rather than seeing it as a freedom of the press issue.  Does Rolling Stone have a moral obligation, or does it have the right to print as they see fit in order to be profitable?

Is what Rolling Stone did reprehensible?  Or perhaps just a little harsh?  What we do know is that the freedom of the press will live on and the consumer market will judge it justly.   

Headline: Is Anderson Silva the best MMA fighter of all time?

Headline Number Two: Who Cares?

David Gregory looks like Chris Fowler

- David Gregory, NBC



- Chris Fowler, ESPN

The Superbowl is fixed!

Just putting it out there.