Thursday, August 11, 2005

DON'T YOU START ME UP, NOW

We'd not actually bothered to mention the Rolling Stones anti-Bush track on their new album, as - to be honest - the song Sweet Neo-Con is rather embarrassing, so poorly written is it:

You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.
You call yourself a patriot.
Well, I think your are full of shit!
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con.

There are fourteen year-old Goths writing better lines after spending all day out in the sun drinking White Lightning. Anyway, we had ignored it out of respect for Mick Jagger and to help protect his reputation.

Not turning a blind eye, though, is Neil Cavuto over at Fox News [the link does lead to a site which throws the "fascist" charge around a little heavily, but their summary is useful]. Cavuto couldn't leave it alone:

[Cavuto announced that] Jagger took a "big jab at the White House" in a "very controversial tune called 'Sweet Neo-Con'" in which "Mick Jagger calls the President a hypocrite and worse. A lot worse."

Cavuto turned to Fox reporter Anita Vogel who said one of the Rolling Stones' "brand new songs seems to take aim at the Bush administration without actually naming any names." She said the Stones' next album will be out in September and, "word is, it will feature a track called 'Sweet Neo-Con,' a song that seems to attack the president."


Fox, of course, went on to call for a boycott.

Here's the twist, though: caught up in the horror that their not-especially-wanted new album might suffer from an attack on Bush, Jagger has now denied that the song about Bush is a song about Bush:

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on the entertainment-news show's Wednesday edition. "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called 'Sweet Neo Con' if it was."

To be fair to Jagger, the song is so sledgehammer-unsubtle there is every chance that if it had been about only Bush it would probably have been called 'I Don't Like Mr. Bush', but we're not entirely sure how the title demonstrates that it's not about Bush at all. Jagger twists like, well, a butterfly being broken on a wheel:

"It is certainly very critical of certain policies of the administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical."

Ah, so it's about "certain policies of the administration" rather than people? But how can a policy claim that it's a Christian?

Jagger and his chums clearly thought that they could shore their reputations up a little with people under fifty by adding in a little bit of politics; the first whiff that it might cause them trouble on the golfcourse and it's a mad scramble to try and hit reverse. Fox's attempts to scare up a boycott of anyone who expresses a counterview to the network's own is pathetic; how much more pathetic to see the street-fighting man scrambling down his own words to appease Neil Cavuto.


2 comments:

Robin said...

What do you expect? Jagger is, after all, "a right-wing libertarian - straight John Stuart Mill" (William Rees-Mogg 1967). Culturally, he probably deserves the description "Godfather of Thatcherism" even more than Friedman or Wiener.

mia said...

I love your information on Rolling Stones I bookmarked your blog and will be back soon. If you want, check out my blog on Rolling Stones Exposed - please come by

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.