Desperate for circulation, The New York Times goes tabloid. By putting a giant picture of a nipple on the front page. Maybe it was an attempt to distract readers from the scary story to the right of the nipple.
This post was last modified on November 27, 2013
View Comments (33)
They're to distract attention from the boobs on the editorial page
WIN!!
The boob in the picture HAD cancer, the boobs in the editorial page ARE a cancer.
By the way, I'm glad she's doing better. Tattoo and all.
Speaking of tabloids... Anyone else get a weird twitch in their middle fingers when they see the ads for new MSNBC.com?
Have been lucky so far, haven't seen them, or maybe I fast forwarded through them in the DVR.
New Rules Would Rein In CONSERVATIVE Nonprofits' Political Role
Fixed for truth.
I swear We are living in times like Germany in the early 1930s.
Yes. Rather than feel shame at getting caught using the IRS to suppress political opinion, the Democrats are going to increase the suppression. Scary stuff. What better than a big nipple to distract the sheep from their impending slaughter?
Democrats have no moral rectitude so shame is not part of their game.
And now they have control of our healthcare!
It must be because I'm a woman, but the first thing I saw was the tattoo.
Yes and that it was a Star of David and I immediately felt gross.
I'm all man, and the first thing I saw was the tattoo also, followed by the scar on the breast.
The scar is what makes me believe that she didn't shoot this for this, that it could be a breast cancer situation... maybe I am wrong and she did pose for the newspaper.
If you read the caption under the photo... It was indeed a tumor in her breast. She is from Tel Aviv.
Thanks. That is what I thought.
Yep.
I don't believe you!!!
HOLD THE PHONE! You mean this rag wasn't a tabloid before?
That's what I was thinking. The Slimes went tabloid decades ago.
Slap in that face of Jews as well. Tattoos are forbidden in that faith.
shouldn't she have the Mercedes-benz emblem tattoo to prove she really jewish.
Yes I know! That is what I first thought... How grossssss! NYT seriously needs to go away...
I did not know that. Learn something every day. So the tattoo here is really meant as an insult, not a statement of support? Wow, strange photo to put on a New York newspaper's front page.
Yes tattoos are forbidden and if a limb or appendage is lost, that must be preserved for burial at the time of death. Also the plastic surgeon screwed up. The scare is suppose to be on the underside of the breast, not the top.
Hell the NY Times can't even find a decent picture to put on their rag. At least she shaved her underarms.
That looks like a lumpectomy scar. The underside scars are for more extensive surgery.
It could be that it as thought to be a statement of support, but practicing Jews (especially the most conservative) would be offended by the tattoo, the fact that it is a star of David, that it is on a woman and that she is essentially being immodest. Ugh... seriously wrong move on their parts. If they meant it for good they are clueless, it gives off the wrong message.
It's an Israeli woman, and presumably Jewish, from the caption. Christians aren't supposed to get inked either , if I recall.
She is either an extremely liberal practicing Jew or she is not a practicing Jew, or she is not a Jew and she could just be an Israeli national. Is this a photo for breast cancer and this isn't even a photo taken for the cover? Looking at the scar there... It could be that she didn't even model for this.
As for Christians, we live in freedom from the law. If a Christian wants to ink herself or himself with something that is not blasphemous, gross and not intended for bad...(a real Christian wouldn't want to anyway) not a problem, but if they feel that they shouldn't, even if the image or word is not necessarily bad, then they shouldn't. Conscience and the motive behind the thought dictates.
This is just stuff for anyone who is interested:
The issue with tattoos back then, and the reason G-d is (was?) against it, was because at the time, He wanted His people to be different and separate from the OTHER people in the land. People were tattooing themselves all over with the images and names of their gods/idols and also blasphemous or even just gross and overly sexual images and words. Also the men were putting the name and/or images of their gods/idols on their penises as a way of making it stronger or better or make more babies or whatever. OBVIOUSLY The Lord of the Universe is not going to be okay with that! His Name is to be respected and honored and loved. First Commandment. So to protect His people from serious blasphemy and sin, He made a law against tattooing. It makes perfect sense like always.
Side note: In times of St. Patrick if I am not mistaken, there were druids/witches/warlocks with blue or green snake tattoos on their bodies. St. Patrick drew them away from the land, it is my understanding that is where the whole snake thing came from. Sadly St. Patrick is now honored with drunkenness and disgustingness. Anyway just an example of how tattooing is bad, however I am sure that if it is not meant to offend the Lord G-d in anyway a Christian woman putting the image of a butterfly on her may not be a carnal sin.
The only reference to what might be construed as tattoos in the Bible is a restriction on scarring one's body in memorial of the dead. Other than that it's pretty much not mentioned. Leviticus I think it was. Oh heck, I'll go look it up for ya...
Wait a minute! I'm full of crap. Apparently dissuaded from reading the rest of the line after the reference to scarring oneself for the dead, the part about not having any marks printed on your body escaped me. I'm the son of a preacherman. I thought I knew the what not about this. I've also avoided the inkman and haven't any inkling (?) to rethink that, but I have had a couple girlfriends with tats. The dance instructor/black belts in three martial arts one, she had a lot of them. A few were quite ridiculous, ruinous scars. She definitely had a point to prove to her parents.
Leviticus 19 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0319.htm
So feature how Jews, particularly religious Jews felt about being tattooed for the Nazis
Exactly. EVERYTHING Hitler did was meant to be demeaning, dehumanizing and insulting. It was all a plan to mock G-d and His people.
O' course that can be looked at a few different ways too. The "for the dead" can be interpreted as referring ONLY to the cutting part, and obviously too , this is OT, part of the Old Law, and as St Paul says, if you're going to adhere to one rule just for the sake of it being the Law, then you're obligated to all of it.
I've also heard that piercings are prohibited, but somehow that doesn't apply to ladies' pierced ears.
I am not 100% on women at the moment but I do know that men who were pierced in the earlobe were an indication of them being slaves. Being enslaved in many instances is seen as a sign of a curse on the person or the people's lives.
This is also very interesting especially the Hindu (at the very end and what he had to say): http://bibleresources.org/body-piercings/. This is their interpretations and their opinion, it could be a bit too strict to some people.
Again it seems to me to go back to G-d wanting His people to be separate and different from the OTHER people. By Other obviously unbelievers.
I am not into body piercings nor tattoos although I do have pierced ears from when I was a child because my Mom did that, because her Mom did that but regardless I am sure it wasn't meant for anything bad nor evil nor it is something that is bad nor evil now with that said, I won't do it to my daughter and she will make that choice herself if she wants. I just don't need nor want EXTRA stuff that I wasn't born with.