When I hear the name Rolling Stone magazine, I'm immediately thinking of those over-the-top head shots gracing the cover of the iconic monster publication.

The last thing I would associate Rolling Stone with, would be a cover page devoted to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, unless it was a picture of his lifeless body.  In case his name seems faintly recognizable, he just happens to be one-half of the Boston Marathon bombing team, that is now being immortalized in "rock star" status...well, when the mag rolls out tomorrow (July 19)...he will be.

The backlash from this will predominantly be felt in the New England area, and already public officials in Boston have denounced Stones' actions, but as this story gains steam there may be more retailers ducking for "cover".  Already CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens have all said thanks, but no thanks.

From what I've heard, the story will entail the struggles of Tsarnaev and his brother growing up in a pathetic environment featuring mental anguish and torment (how poignant).  PLEASE...spare us the psycho-babble!  What message does this convey to other anti-American sickos, or warped minds in general that have murderous fantasies?

Wouldn't TIME magazine be more suitable in handling this cover.  At least they wouldn't have air-brushed Tsarnaev's hair so as to confuse his looks with Jim Morrison.  I don't recall the Columbine executioners making an "RS" cover, but I vaguely remember "The Unabomber" on TIME.

Of course, Rolling Stone came out with that obligatory statement from their PR person citing among other things that "dude" is relatable to the mags demo, so why not feature someone on the cover that people in a similar age group would want to read about.

James Costello, who pulled out nails from his body after the attack, told the Associated Press "I think whoever wrote the article should have their legs blown off by someone, struggle through treatment, and then see who they would choose to put on the cover."

Time for your opinion.