Rolling Stone Hates Us and Everything We Do...
Some marketing guru sent me a free copy of Rolling Stone magazine in the mail, which included an offer for four more free copies if I wish. It may bring a boost to my laughter quota per day, but in short, "not on your life!" Needless to say I would never have actually bought a copy of their rag in the first place, but had I not received this complimentary copy (there is a joke in there somewhere) I would not have been treated to such all out, uncontrolled diatribe of left-leaning, Bush-hating B.S. I have seen in a while.
I used to actually enjoy R.S. when I was in high school. It was one of the only places I could read about what was then called "alternative music". I really enjoyed their college radio lists in the back (does anyone remember Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians, probably not). Part of the reason I enjoyed R.S. back then was for the music. I either payed no attention to their political leanings or did not notice. I even thought P.J. O'Rourke was on their side, which shows you how uninformed I was back then (too bad P.J. does not work there anymore). Now when I searched for some news on some "new" music, all I found was a story about some group I knew of anyway, or the articles consistently reported on how much the artist is a lefty. Just to remind everyone, I knew better, and I know there are better resources to dig up new music, e.g. conservativepunk.com. But, I was amazed at the hatred, the rhetoric, and the uncontrolled pap.
Quick example, they refer to Sen. Harry Reid (d) of Nevada as "the gunslinger". Thinking back on the perusal of the flat-out garbage printed in the rag, I can say it is a good look at how far gone the left is today.
I missed last month's edition, but I would bet it was much of the same. Writers espousing liberal beliefs, telling us of bands we already know, and it all mixed with the sheep squealing, "Bush is baaaad". I was reading the letters to the editor, in the front of the mag, and saw that a reader was taking a writer with a liberal slant to task. The piece from last month was titled, "the Quagmire". I guess that one can easily realize that the piece was about Iraq. The writer of the piece was named Dreyfuss, and much like the rest of the liberal established press a reader points out that Dreyfuss quotes a source close to the military as saying, "our plan is to make Iraq a colony". I suggest going back and reading above again. Someone is responsible for this crap. Who actually believes our country's intentions are to turn Iraq into a colony? Who uses the word colony anymore either? But wait the writer, Dreyfuss, responds to the readers letter. Dreyfuss writes, "The military brass now says ( good grammar there) that American troops will be in Iraq for ""many years"". That may not qualify as a colony, but it's damn close." Come on, this is too easy. Does this guy call himself a journalist? I have a few questions for this guy. How long have our troops been stationed in Okinawa? Or Germany? Or Korea? Or Sicily? These may not qualify as colonies, because they are not.
Of course there is more to refute in the mag. This is but a small sampling. Stay tuned for more when I pick apart the R.S. piece on AIDS funds to Africa.
I used to actually enjoy R.S. when I was in high school. It was one of the only places I could read about what was then called "alternative music". I really enjoyed their college radio lists in the back (does anyone remember Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians, probably not). Part of the reason I enjoyed R.S. back then was for the music. I either payed no attention to their political leanings or did not notice. I even thought P.J. O'Rourke was on their side, which shows you how uninformed I was back then (too bad P.J. does not work there anymore). Now when I searched for some news on some "new" music, all I found was a story about some group I knew of anyway, or the articles consistently reported on how much the artist is a lefty. Just to remind everyone, I knew better, and I know there are better resources to dig up new music, e.g. conservativepunk.com. But, I was amazed at the hatred, the rhetoric, and the uncontrolled pap.
Quick example, they refer to Sen. Harry Reid (d) of Nevada as "the gunslinger". Thinking back on the perusal of the flat-out garbage printed in the rag, I can say it is a good look at how far gone the left is today.
I missed last month's edition, but I would bet it was much of the same. Writers espousing liberal beliefs, telling us of bands we already know, and it all mixed with the sheep squealing, "Bush is baaaad". I was reading the letters to the editor, in the front of the mag, and saw that a reader was taking a writer with a liberal slant to task. The piece from last month was titled, "the Quagmire". I guess that one can easily realize that the piece was about Iraq. The writer of the piece was named Dreyfuss, and much like the rest of the liberal established press a reader points out that Dreyfuss quotes a source close to the military as saying, "our plan is to make Iraq a colony". I suggest going back and reading above again. Someone is responsible for this crap. Who actually believes our country's intentions are to turn Iraq into a colony? Who uses the word colony anymore either? But wait the writer, Dreyfuss, responds to the readers letter. Dreyfuss writes, "The military brass now says ( good grammar there) that American troops will be in Iraq for ""many years"". That may not qualify as a colony, but it's damn close." Come on, this is too easy. Does this guy call himself a journalist? I have a few questions for this guy. How long have our troops been stationed in Okinawa? Or Germany? Or Korea? Or Sicily? These may not qualify as colonies, because they are not.
Of course there is more to refute in the mag. This is but a small sampling. Stay tuned for more when I pick apart the R.S. piece on AIDS funds to Africa.
posted by Daedalus at 6/09/2005 10:14:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home