Rolling Stone needs a Weather Person

As Rolling Stone magazine continues it's 40th anniversary special, it devotes the November 16, 2007 issue ($6.95) to "Where We're Going." To determine where "we're" going, they interview twenty-five people and, judging by the list, where "we're" going is to the Land of the White Straight Male.



Three women, all White, are interviewed: Actress Meryl Streep (two pages), primatologist Jane Goodall (two pages) and physicist Lisa Randall (one page) adds up to less than 1/8 of the discussion's participants. Three African-Americans (all male) academic, Cornel West (one page), rapper Kanye West (one page) and comedian Chris Rock (three-pages), also end up less than 1/8 of the discussion's participants. (For those wondering, in these Q & A segments, who is asking the questions and it's 25 males.) Forty years older and what have they learned?



Apparently damn little.



The good news? Publisher Jann S. Wenner writes a four paragraph opening that brims with passion. It's not as nervy as he would have offered at the start of the magazine but it is much stronger (much, much stronger) than many would have expected considering the centrist tilt in the 90s that the magazine still can't shake (we're speaking of the political coverage in the 90s). Wenner's second and third sentences: "For the past seven years we have been fed a diet of fear and falsehood. We have been led into a war with neither purpose nor success, taking the lives of tens of thousands and turning millions into refugees." The Iraq War.



One of the central issues of our times, it gets damn little attention from the 'experts.' Al Snore leads off the pack and Iraq's not on his mind. Some may say, "Of course not, he's a dedicated" or re-dedicated "environmentalist!" He's got time to name-check "sexual slavery," he's got time to name-check AIDS, he's just doesn't have time for the illegal war. Which is why oh-so-many-in- the-know don't see him as a "Mr. Peace." For four yawn-inducing pages, Gore avoids the issue even when Wenner (who conducts the interview) asks directly: "Let's talk about the failure of the Congress. Even with the current leadership, we have failed to deal with Iraq, we are on the edge of passing another wiretapping law, we can't seem to increase the taxes on billionaires. What's going on with Congress, what's wrong in there? Where's the failure?"



Gore sees no "failure." That's "premature"! "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing heroic work and should be cut some slack for the fact that they can't get instant results"! At one point is the alleged outsider's embarrassing tongue bath for a do-nothing Congress, he informs that the "wind is at our back." Don't stand down-wind of Al Gore.



Moving on to such pressing issues as WWII and Holiday Inns ("burden of staying in Holiday Inns and making speeches"), it's over so quickly readers are left with the impression that there are a host of issues they need to focus on; however, the illegal war isn't one of them.

What they may miss, though they shouldn't, is that Gore remains wedded to support for nuclear energy. He belittles the risks of it (in Tennessee "we're immune to the effects of radiation [laughs]."), explains his position (unstated in the interview, but he supports it) isn't "reflexive and automatic opposition" (and people wonder why the press attacks on his character stuck), repeats a bold face lie (no, Iran has not been proved to have "developed" nukes) and robs the anti-nuke movement of their credit in stopping the spread of nuclear power across the United States ("There have been no new nuclear power plants ordered in the United States since 1973, mainly because they take the most money to build, they take the longest time to build, and they only come in one size, extra large.") Take that Karen Silkwood, No Nukes and anyone who worked their butts off to keep the country (even Tennessee) safe from nuclear radiation.



Next up is one-time rocker Bono whose stock has fallen considerably as he has publicly bragged about grabbing up the publishing rights of fifties music artist to make a quick buck off them, gotten into bed with Big Business (and Tony Blair and Bully Boy), released a 'game' where players could assassinate Hugo Chavez, and oh so many more embarrassments. In fact, the closest the one-time rocker's been to music in years was his snit-fit with neighbor Sammy Hagar over smoke.

In a Rolling Stone Interview that still haunts him (and knocked the shine off), Bono explained that his little do-nothing group's tiny measures in Africa (tiny and insulting) were too important for him to ever voice an opinion on the Iraq War. That interview knocked the shine off of him with what are now former fans and, more importantly, led him to find out how the rock world could and would close ranks. So although he won't mention Iraq ("Middle East" and "shock and awe" and Abu Ghraib all get name checked once and aren't discussed, just tossed out), he wants people to know that he wasn't just lapping at the crotch of the powerful, he told Paul Wolfowitz, "Condi" (still the shameless name dropper, all these years later), Karl Rove and apparently everyone but "President Bush" ("I try to stick to my pitch" offers the carny barker for avoiding the topic with Bully Boy) that it wouldn't work.



The last hold outs of Bono (the ones believing the myth of the perfect and faithful marriage, possibly) are in for a crushing blow, Bono supports the alleged 'war on terror': "I want to be very, very clear, however, I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend that it wasn't."

Imminent threat? If it seems like Bono's declaring, "Round up all the Muslims," it's because that's basically what he's saying. But rest assured, he's got hate to spew at everyone. The IRA and Gerry Adams come in for such a tongue lashing that it's probably good for his own safety that his greed (he doesn't want to pay taxes) has resulted in his living outside of Ireland. As an 'activist,' he's nothing but an apologist for the powerful and a Republican (let's all get honest) issuing the sort of nonsense such as "the rich world will invest in the education of the poor world, because it is our best protection against young minds being twisted by extremist ideologies". Spoken like a student of Friedman -- Milton and Saint Thomas. He's off on the Marshall Plan and a host of other things he appears to know nothing about but hob-knobbing with the likes of Orrin Hatch have clearly rubbed off on the conservative and portly hog caller.

Fat Little Man has nothing left but his right-wing base. He's bought every reactionary lie and myth and repeats them. The aid lie, if you don't recognize it's actual roots, is the same lie the GOP has used for decades to avoid calls for fair taxation claiming that equal taxation on the extremely rich is unnecessary because it's in their own interests to invest in equality. As Paul Krugman notes in his Q & A, "The government's role has turned into one of, in effect, promoting inequality, promoting the interest of an elite against everyone else." Bono got in with that crowd due to having a "name." The "name" is now the equivalent of "Wayne Newton." Look for him to live out his final years entertaining GOP national conventions.



The one-time box office hope George Clooney shows up to dash more expectations than he ever did on an opening weekend. "You've got to play with the big boys," Clooney declares and, no, he doesn't mean McQueen, Newman or Redford. He means, sadly, John Bolton. He explains, at one point, that "liberal" shouldn't be a dirty word, then he goes on to say Bill O'Reilly's right about a left-wing conspiracy by telling an embarrassing (for him) story that shouldn't have been told because it's not about a left-wing conspiracy and it's more of what you'd expect Alan Colmes to offer Sean Hannity. The story is about a host of lefties in the enterainment world to get together to discuss the Academy Awards presentation. Should they make some sort of statement? Clooney pisses all over the idea (centrist that he is). This meeting was alluded to in real time at The Common Ills. No one was named nor was it portrayed as a conspiracy but, at that time, Danny Schechter rightly called out the lack of statements at the Oscars. Since Clooney's outed himself as the one who pissed on talk and plans for any type of statement, let's note that is the coward. An illegal war is going on, Schechter's right that it should have been noted. But Clooney was among the crowd running around screaming "NO!" and insisting this was Al Gore's big night (exactly why was never noted, apparently the Oscars owed something to Al Gore) and preached the "unity" nonsense. Clooney embarasses himself by not only outing himself but naming others. (Is he gearing up for modern day McCarthyism?) But it's not a "left wing conspiracy." It was people in an industry opposed to the illegal war, opposed to the policies of a despicable administration, discussing their concerns and whether a statement was in order. It was no different than any other preparations for an international telecast watched the world over. But Clooney linkens it to a "left wing conspiracy" and turns it into both a cheap joke and proof that Bill O'Lielly is correct. That's shameful. It's also embarrassing because he's claiming that the word "liberal" needs to be fought for at one moment and then trashing liberals the next -- after bemoaning the bad reputation the term "liberal" has received. That's no way to rescue the term but Clooney's really a centrist.

He expresses an ahistorical view of the world and of history itself. He whines that the reason "we" can't do anything in Darfur (apparently send in the Marines) is because of Iraq. In his world, that is the real tragedy of the Iraq War. He's always been one for the "boys" and he still is repeatedly using male pronouns to refer to leaders, thinkers and anyone not in a strapless number saying, "I loved you on Facts of Life, Mr. Clooney." He endorses "national service for everybody" -- two years. He sees it as a way to build "national unity" -- so did Hitler. He trashes the youth (well, fortunately for him, like most Americans, they don't buy tickets to his films). He ignores the very real activism that is ongoing and also fails to realize that he (born in 1961) didn't grow up under a draft and that didn't keep him from advocating his own causes. But maybe the rest of the world can never be as wonderful as he thinks George Clooney is? Having trashed the youth, he goes on to trash "bloggers" stating that they "think they're the [Edward] Murrows of the future" -- apparently they want to do celebrity interviews like Murrow did? -- "and that anchormen and news organizations are archaic. Here's the problem: If you're a blogger, who's your ombudsman? Who do I go to when you're wrong? Who can I hold responsible?" Who can hold Clooney responsible when he's wrong (and that didn't end with his decision to take over Batman from Michael Keaton)? "Anchormen"? Again, he chases the male, time and again utilizing a masculine pronoun whenever power is being discussed.



He's Burt Reynolds and Sly Stallone after the fall but no one's supposed to state that out loud or note the fact that all but five of his last fifteen movies tanked -- three are the hideous Ocean's franchise (though we are looking forward to Ocean's 27 where a same-sex kiss will no doubt be added to peak interest) and the other two are his bit part in the Spy Kids franchise. Leaving aside those two franchises and his laughable appearance as Batman, he's starred in only two films that broke sixty-million at the box office, Three Kings and A Perfect Storm. That cold light of morning, and not his activism, is why the hopes fell from his career and possibly the realization sent him into old crank territory where he calls for a draft, trashes the youths and rails against "bloggers"?



Eli Pariser, by contrast, comes off like a scientific genius in his one-page Q & A. Eddie Vedder's two-page Q & A serves up that he was "proved" right on Iraq (he was) and then goes on to offer, Barack Obama lover that he is -- a thread throughout the majority of the 'chosen' -- that "there is no good news that's going to come out of Iraq" duh "and there is no good solution. We have to wait for the current batch of thinkers to get out of office and support the next group of leaders, give them positive reinforcement. We can't hold them to task to make all of this go away." You heard it from Eddie, relax in that recliner, America. No need to take to the streets. The next president will be sworn in January 2009, over two years away, but heavy thinker Vedder tells you there's nothing to be done. Instead, you can use the two-years plus time to think of affirmations to deliver to politicians because they need a lot of ego stroking. Vedder's allowed two pages to embarrass himself.



We'd love to go to town on Dave Matthews, who also avoids Iraq, but the truth is he uses his Q & A to actually think so we'll recommend reading it and move on. Cornell West gets two pages (one if a full page photo) to bore us. He succeeds in a jargon-laden, leaden discussion. (Iraq's not a topic.) Jon Stewart avoids Iraq but does mention Ralph Nader -- a name former Nader supporters in the magazine work hard to avoid. Paul Krugman may be the only one in the entire issue to offer a kind word to Hillary Clinton -- all the more shocking considering Bill Clinton's interviewed in this issue. Tom Hanks is skeptical of politicians (good for him, seriously) but really has nothing to say about Iraq in a four-page Q & A (other than that "some combat medics in Iraq" are "funny," "good-looking," "modest," "filled with hubris" and "heroes"). Though Meryl Streep has more Oscar nominations than any actor or actress ("dead or alive," but Peter Travers only refers to actresses), she's reduced to two-pages -- even so, she manages to comment on the illegal war (and wars period). As does Chris Rock in his three-page Q & A. Kanye West? When you boast that you're not interested in the news and only see news when you're about to log into your Yahoo e-mail account, maybe you don't have much to say? Using limited time to comment on the "news" about a pumpkin carving contest suggests that is the case.



Bill Clinton gets four-pages to pontificate and the lesson here is that the Hillary campaign needs to limit his sit-downs. The triangulator can't get through an interview without rubbing many non-right-wingers the wrong way and this one is no exception. He's all up in Karl Rove's Kool-Aid over the "politics of division" and how the GOP used race in elections. Fair enough until he starts offering himself as an example -- a good one, ignoring his Sister Souljah moment among many other things. The mouth drops (unless you remember he was never that left) when he uses the term "illegal immigrants" and is followed with his talk of "the Other" and the need to "convert" them. Re-launch the Crusades, Billy? He dismisses Iraq in one paragraph and it's obvious that if the question didn't demand it be addressed, he wouldn't. The question is: "What should they have done differently in Iraq?" The obvious answer is: Not have invaded. But Bill Clinton, who bombed and sanctioned that country, can't say that. He was for regime change in Iraq. So instead he offers inanity about Al Anbar Province and the Cold War. He also offers shout-outs to Newt Gingrinch and assorted questionable others. Again, the smartest move the Hillary campaign could make is to limit his sit-downs. In addition, they might remind him that his wife is running for president. (Two in the Hillary camp stress that they had no idea the magazine's issue would be filled with Barack worship -- caught blindsided when they shouldn't have been -- or Bill would have talked up Hillary.)



The end result is that issues of race and gender go largely unremarked upon and are, apparently, of no interest to 'our' future. Streep addresses realities for women, Rock addresses the issue of race. A lot of White men reflecting on the Civil Rights movement is not addressing anything. Tom Hanks addresses same-sex issues and deserves credit for that since he's the only one in the official segments to do so. In an unofficial embarrassing section on music -- really an advertising fold out entitled "The Future of Music" -- where various people are given a few lines to weigh in, Melissa Etheridge avoids the issue but does say she wants to be remembered as "a good American." The illegal war is either ignored (we've noted the exceptions except for Billie Joe Armstrong) or something that isn't a pressing issue.



Novelist David Eggers, in a one-page Q & A, breaks the conventional wisdom taboo on Iraq -- one repeated over and over by the likes of George Clooney and others in the issue and in the outside world -- by noting the students he encounters who are effected by the illegal war. Rock notes people he encounters who are as well. Of course, they're both leaving a Whites Only world to do that.



Where "we're" going?



The 25 interviews are a failure as a whole because of who got invited and who didn't. Worth reading are: Meryl Streep, Chris Rock, Jane Goodall, Dave Matthews, Dave Eggers and Tom Hanks. Six out of 25 might be good if this were live TV; however, this is a print magazine. Not only could some of the pontificating men been reduced to a single page with no great loss, many of the interviews should have been killed instead of printed.



One of the issues for the US in the near future is the debate on immigration and the increase in Latino and Latina Americans. If you read all the interviews, you'll note the topic was never addressed. Maybe Bill Clinton thinks "illegal immigration" covered it? That's the problem with the issue of the magazine, so many realities aren't covered and they couldn't and wouldn't be with the lineup of subjects. Another race issue is the increasing number of bi-racial and multi-racial Americans but, in an issue where all hail Barack Obama as "Black," it's no surprise that this emerging demographic isn't noted.



Those who prefer and/or utilize audio should know that audio excerpts are available online of some of the interviews. As a whole, the November 15, 2007 issue tells you Iraq isn't worth discussing or, if it is, it's something that we'll wait two years to address, that -- demographic evidence to the contrary -- most Americans are White Males, that they are the voices to listen to and the ones to go to because White, Straight and Male are the universals. Where are "we" going? It's not even where we are.