I've heard both sides of this controversial issue. One side is saying it's glorifying one of the Boston Marathon bombers. One side is saying they're just telling a story.

Rolling Stone knows what it's doing. I love the magazine and the website. I've been a subscriber to the magazine in years past, and I have several back issues that I still look though. Rolling Stone's photography has always been a major part of the publication. Their photographers and covers have given us some of the most poignant, impressive and iconic photos of all time. Look through this cover gallery and you'll see what I mean. Frequently these are images that define our music, politics and generations.

In my opinion, this current cover is no less controversial than others. They've had Roman Polanski on it. They've put Charles Manson on it. They've dressed Kanye West up as Jesus. They've put John Lennon nude on the cover for Chissakes! I don't remember you baby boomers hollering about that one. And for you ladies? I suppose you were outraged at the fact that David Cassidy of the Partridge Family was featured nearly nude (back in 1967!) laying in the grass with a 'keep going, baby' smile on. Where was your outrage then?

Rolling Stone is certainly a liberal-leaning publication. It has to be, because I would assume that most of it's readers lean that way politically. But if you'll take the time to read the article, like I have, you'll see just how ridiculous the current brouhaha is... the intent of the story is to illustrate how a nice-looking young man, with a seemingly bright future, can use his good looks and charms as (and I quote Sally Jo Sorenson from Bluestemprairie.com) "both mask and barrier."

So you can quote me here: Quit gettin' your panties in a bunch. Next month RS will probably give us a great half-naked shot of Rhianna again.