|
August 09, 2005
Has Jagger attacked Bush yet?
Well, now that I've messed up one post today, let's see if I can get this one, uh, straight. The Rolling Stones (one of my favorite bands) are accused of bashing Bush and Rice in a new song, "My Sweet Neo-Con." According to Drudge, here's the story and the lyrics: JAGGER ROCKS BUSH, RICE: 'HOW COME YOU'RE SO WRONG, MY SWEET NEO-CON'OK, first of all, since when has it become mandatory to bash the Secretary of State along with the president? Wasn't the big bad Cheney big enough and bad enough? Our last Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright) didn't merit all this attention. Nor did Haig, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, or Christopher. So why the fuss about Condoleeza Rice? And Bush was reelected less than a year ago, so it's not as if there's a presidential race or something. Anyway, I can't find the exact reference to Condoleeza Rice in the song. Perhaps someone can clue me in. For the Stones' part, their publicist denied that the song is about Bush: Britain's New Musical Express publication, which calls itself "the world's biggest-selling rock weekly," reported last week that Sweet Neo-Con "is believed to be an attack on the politics of George Bush and the Republican administration." Various other publications have made similar reports, and the Rolling Stones Fan Club of Europe says Virgin Records has been telling people the song has "a political message about moralism in the White House."Not sure what they're saying now. Several recent British accounts (and this Australian account) repeat essentially the same story as Drudge, but without any reference to Condoleeza Rice. Reading through the stories as carefully as I can, other than in the headline texts, I am at a loss to find any actual references to Bush at all by the Stones or the lyric. For the sake of argument, is it possible that the word "Neo-Con" might refer to a particular person other than Bush? Is Bush supposed to be the "sweet Neo-Con"? Is Rice? Or is it someone else? The only specific Bush reference I could find was here, and I don't know how reliable it is: The Rolling Stones are getting political on their new album, A Bigger Bang. Mick Jagger tells Newsweek that the new tune "Sweet Neo Con" is a dig at George W. Bush. With lyrics like "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of s—t," Jagger says it is a direct attack on U.S. politics. He tells Newsweek, "Keith [Richards] said, 'It's not really metaphorical.' I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the U.S., but I don't."Without confirmation from Newsweek, how are we to know? I find it hard to believe it's just a coincidence that the Stones' upcoming tour starts August 21, and I know Mick Jagger is a pretty shrewd businessman. If I were him, I might backpedal a bit. Claim to have been "misunderstood" while basking in the publicity this is already generating. (After all, his publicist has already laid the groundwork for him....) UPDATE: Here at last is Newsweek (August 15) -- supposedly the source of the stories: The Stones' new music sounds more spontaneous than most of their recent efforts, and Jagger sounds angrier than he has in years. Since the band's last studio album, Jagger has ended his 23-year relationship with wife Jerry Hall, and was taken to court over an illegitimate child he fathered with a Brazilian model, which may explain such lyrics as "Oh no! Not you again, f—-ing up my life/It was bad the first time around/Better take my own advice." But the most searing moment, on a song called "Sweet Neo Con," isn't personal but political. "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of s—t." "It is direct," Jagger says with a laugh. "Keith said [he breaks into a dead-on Keith imitation], 'It's not really metaphorical.' I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the U.S." Jagger smiles. "But I don't."Huh? What, no Bush? No Rice? Is this soon to be a major misunderstanding? MORE: Looking at the lyric again, it occurs to me that there are people I could honestly say that about who aren't George W. Bush, or Condoleeza Rice, or anyone in the Bush administration and who don't even support Bush. (I don't think I have to name names.) AND MORE: Newsweek also notes that the concert is not yet sold out: Want a ticket for this year's tour, which kicks off in Boston on Aug. 21? Hurry, it's almost sold out.Hmmmm.... (I'm tempted to ask whether this is any way to promote a tour, but I've already made enough mistakes for one day, so I'll leave the temptation alone.) UPDATE (08/10/05): My assessment of the situation seems to have been largely vindicated-- and by Mr. Jagger himself: NEW YORK -- The Rolling Stones' upcoming album contains a song seemingly critical of President Bush, but Mick Jagger denies it's directed at him, according to the syndicated TV show "Extra."Sigh. Might it be about me? (Many people think I'm sweet.) AFTERTHOUGHT: Has Mick Jagger betrayed his apparent former disdain for politics? Actually, considering that he long ago confessed to harboring a secret desire to become a Member of Parliament, an interest in politics at this stage of his life might not be as far fetched as it would seem. Add to that the fact that the much younger Tony Blair was called a "Mick Jagger wannabe" (by the Times, no less) and the intrigue grows. posted by Eric on 08.09.05 at 03:45 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2645 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Has Jagger attacked Bush yet?:
» Jagger Jabs War Supporters from The American Mind
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! A rock star is an anti-war, anti-conservative lefty. Ho-hum. This is so 2004. If Mick Jagger wants... [Read More] Tracked on August 10, 2005 06:48 PM
» Cracking the geezers from ReidBlog
Did somebody in the Bush White House get to Mick Jagger? One minute you're an edgy rock god taking on The Man with a controversial new song ... and the next, you're insisting that your torch song ain't meant to torch the president after all. ... [Read More] Tracked on August 11, 2005 05:20 PM
Comments
Old rockers just want to remain relevant, is all I see here. Calling a Christian- any Christian- a hypocrite, is a quick way to score points with a “Deaniac” audience. Typewriter King · August 10, 2005 04:34 AM A Christian is someone who believes in the Apostle's Creed -- not somebody who believes in the Socialist Gospel. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 10, 2005 07:43 AM Whenever I see or hear the name Jagger, I always think of Feric Jagger in Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream. I still crack up thinking about that novel. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 10, 2005 07:45 AM Mick Jagger hasn't done anything worth paying attention to in 25 years. The Warden · August 10, 2005 12:11 PM Absolutely! Bush would probably like to do away with Freedom of Speech, but Mick only used that right, and happened to speak the truth while doing so. What should be looked at is what is good for Americans and not what party has the most rule-we are rather overlooked by the mainstream politicians and faction mined people who do not care about US as a whole. We have people suffering here for surviving and Laura is wearing 10k dollar dresses for photo shoots. If his twins ever need an abortion, they WILL get one-who is kidding who. I once had high hopes for Bush. Then he ran scared when we were attacked. Second, he announced a war, which was only a personal vendetta of his and based on lies, and was not the answer for fighting terrorists or finding them who attached us. Billions of dollars later, gas going higher and higher, all else going higher in cost from oil prices, and soon winter heating bills will hit Americans again........big-time lying hypocrite..........Bush IS full of s............! greneyedgold · August 13, 2005 02:20 PM attached meant attacked incase minute details are a worry instead of the larger issues of our situation in this country. greneyedgold · August 13, 2005 02:22 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Our last Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright) didn't merit all this attention. Nor did Haig, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, or Christopher. So why the fuss about Condoleeza Rice?"
Because she's a thousand times sexier.
"And Bush was reelected less than a year ago, so it's not as if there's a presidential race or something."
Quite true.