What takes me aback are how graphic the news photos are as compared to the almost total visual censorship of American war casualties over the past twelve years.

Beyond the pitched cries of editorial impropriety, perhaps it's not all clear what the subway photo is really about. When you think about it, for example, what the photo offers is not the story of what happened so much as its consequence.

There are several elements to point out about this photo which both punctuate the kiss and the potential for pushing buttons of less open-minded viewers. Here they are in increasing order of impact.

If we want to take visual politics seriously, what Chrysler and its corporate Madison Avenue agency did in its ad can be best understood as anti-union.

Here is a true "emperor's new clothes" moment, not to mention a brilliant example of the photojournalist refusing to play along.

The photo almost everybody saw. I guess it's hard to conclude anything other than the fact that the Occupy movement must have decided to torch itself.

This shot got the overwhelming share of attention -- a reactionary governor, overflowing with the same lack of respect for the president as the radical far-right she's aligned with.

What's so significant about this Washington Post photo is how it plants the seeds of demonization in a movement that has been overwhelmingly peaceful and non-violent so far.

Is Occupy Wall Street comprised of hippie youth? Not according to these photos.

Considering that TIME has always reserved the "big floating head" treatment for shoe-in nominees, their Rick Perry cover suggests an air of inevitability.

Why isn't anyone asking what made the edifice of the WTC such a target in the first place?

Looking at Bush and Perry, I don't think you get the sense at all they are clones as much as you get the feeling -- that they are both players.