Media

Is This the Rolling-Stoniest Rolling Stone Cover Ever?

Jann Wenner's comfort zone

|

On a newsstand near you:

Rolling Stone

The Obama/Krugman story is probably the first thing to grab your attention, but what's most striking to me is that the most current band on the cover is Weezer. Evidently Jann Wenner is still making the big decisions.

NEXT: How To Thwart A Robot Apocalypse: Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom on the Dangers of Superintelligent Machines

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t think Hunter S. Thompson would have had a lot of kind things to say about Obama.

    1. As I said before, Hunter S. Thompson would be in prison if he were starting his career now.

    2. “in Defense of Obama”

      translation:

      “It is simply impossible for me to ever, ever suck enough Obama dick.”

  2. Why does Obama have his hand on his throat? Is he trying to choke himself out?

    1. “Now lean forward and choke yourself!”

      1. Goddamn it, with my hand, numbnuts.

      2. MSNBCs new slogan?

    2. Yes, so he doesn’t have to hear Weezer’s music.

      1. *stands to begin thunderous applause*

        1. *narrows gaze*

      2. Should a once great band be blamed for their post fame and fortune indulgences? They probably still put on a pretty good live show and it gives them an excuse to not play “Buddy Holly” at every gig.

        1. You’re talking about Jackson Browne, right?

  3. I’m sure Mick Jagger will still be getting Rolling Stone coverage when he’s pushing a walker.

    Is Rolling Stone even a real music magazine anymore, or is it People for aging boomers?

    1. Clearly, the latter.

      “OMG, Jackson Brown looks so good!”

      Jackson fucking Brown? Really?

    2. Partly that, and partly red meat for leftist douchebags. Recently they had a hit piece about the Koch brothers that looked like it could have been written by one of us trying to be funny.

    3. Hey, what do you have against People?

  4. Holy shit, that is just pathetic.

  5. What exactly did Mick Jagger learn from James Brown? I need to know!

    1. Something about Brown Sugar?

    2. He learned how to get off on the good foot.

    3. According the Keith Richards he learned that lead singers should be the star and treat their bandmates and road crew like shit.

    4. After listening to Don Covay, I figured Mick Jagger borrowed some of his chops.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWioaVN9olY

      Bonus: Jimi Hendrix when he was a studio musician.

      1. Damn, you can always tell a Jimi lick. I recognized it right away when the track started.

    5. How to hit it and quit it?

    6. When and how to “take it to the bridge” and that one must ask the band for permission to “take it to the bridge”.

    7. *What exactly did Mick Jagger learn from James Brown? I need to know!*

      He learned exactly where Tina Turner was ticklish.

      Owwwww!

  6. I want to know what the article about Tea Party occupied territory says. Did they visit behind enemy lines and see the women in chains pulling plows, the minorities in mass graves, and the homosexuals in stocks?

    1. “If not Arizona, then a land not too far away. Where all parents are strong and wise and capable and all children are happy and beloved. I don’t know. Maybe it was Utah.”

      1. +1 biker of the apocalypse.

          1. Nobody sleeps naked in this house!

    2. That was ISIS occupied territory.

  7. What is worse is that the other people listed (Neil Young, Mick Jagger and Jackson Brown) while dated, were at one time at least pretty big deals. Weezer in contrast was at their best lucky to sell out the old Bronco Bowl in Dallas. The scions of dork rock never die I guess. They just fade away onto the pages of magazines run by dork journalists.

    1. Weezer did great on their first recording, and they still sell out stadiums in Japan. Yeah, I know, Japanese are odd.

      1. So they are the dork version of Spinal Tap. “We are really big in Belgium, I mean Japan”.

        And their first record was fun. It is not that they are necessarily bad. They are not really, just really big dorks and not in the ironic way they thought they were. It is that it has been 20 years since that record and I somehow still know who they are.

        1. I’ve got their first disc and still listen to it from time to time. The kid loves it.

          1. It is a good record. Who doesn’t like Mary Tyler Moore?

              1. That is because Lou was a fag. NTTAWWT. Mary was smoking back the day.

                1. *Mary was smoking back the day.*

                  Indeed, but she was never the same after moving from B&W to Color TV.

            1. Weezer.

              1. I think I would have gone for Tap over Weezer…

                  1. +1 Mach

          2. I love their first 3 albums, but admittedly I did not know they were still around…

            1. Oh yeah, they drop a new album every two years like clockwork that has a single that will make it on the pop/rock Comcast station. Its not bad music, but it ain’t great.

      2. Weezer did great on their first recording, and they still sell out stadiums in Japan. Yeah, I know, Japanese are odd.

        you know who else sold out stadiums in Japan?

        I’ll answer for you: Cheap Trick.

    2. What is worse is that the other people listed (Neil Young, Mick Jagger and Jackson Brown) while dated, were at one time at least pretty big deals. Weezer in contrast was at their best lucky to sell out the old Bronco Bowl in Dallas.

      I assume that with any band that emerged after the Us Festival, Wenner’s just guessing how popular they ever were.

      At any rate, there’s still a pretty big supply of Jagger and Young fans out there. But I’m scratching my head at how many people buy a magazine because they see Jackson Browne’s name on the cover.

      1. Brown has a small but very dedicated following. He still comes to the wolftrap in Washington most years and sells it out. I would equate Brown as being to 70s rock what Elvis Costello is to new wave. Costello has a core group of fans that will never leave him even if he hasn’t had a hit played on the radio in over 20 years. Brown is the same way.

        1. I saw Costello play a few weeks ago, by the way, and he put on a terrific show.

          Anyway, I know Browne has a cult following; I just wouldn’t expect him to be a name that moves magazines on a Rolling Stone scale.

          1. I am sure he did. And Brown puts on a great show too. You kind of forget how many songs he has done. He still has his voice and is a very good musician.

          2. To be fair, when I see this magazine at the doctor’s office in 8 months, I may read the Jackson Browne article but I sure the fuck won’t read the Obama article.

            1. I sure the fuck won’t read the Obama article.

              What if you need to induce vomiting?

              1. I stare at a photo of Valerie Jarrett

            2. You’re expecting your phone to be broken, too?

        2. Costello isn’t that kind of pop. He’s actually a pretty serious musician that has carved out a successful niche for himself where he doesn’t need to be on top 40.

          1. *Costello isn’t that kind of pop. *

            LOL, Costello isn’t *any* kind of pop.

      2. lucky to sell out the old Bronco Bowl in Dallas.

        Awww, man! Don’t dis the Bronco Bowl like that…. Fuckers.

    3. Shorter John: NERDS!

    4. *The scions of dork rock never die I guess. They just fade away onto the pages of magazines run by dork journalists.*

      Sometimes they just end up writing movie reviews for Reason.com

  8. Evidently Jann Wenner is still making the big decisions.

    I hear Dylan has a new LP coming out soon!

    1. It definitely can’t be the Rolling Stoniest ever without Dylan-worship.

      1. I still like Gillespie’s riff on Rolling Stone where he described every RS interview of Dylan just an attempt to goad him into saying something reliably progressive.

    2. The FreeWheelchairin’ Bob Dylan
      Blood on My Poop
      Slow Car Driving
      Mind out of Time

      1. Grey on Grey

  9. Weezer, more like Geezer…

    Anyone under 45 give a shit about anything in that issue?

      1. ^^THIS^^ I am pretty sure everyone of all ages never gave a shit about Weezer and stopped giving a shit about Neil Young if they ever did.

        1. I love Neil Young… his 70s output that is. Now? Meh.

          1. Exactly. Jackson Brown at least did a couple of decent records in the 90s. Neil Young hasn’t had a good record since the early 80s.

            1. I really like this stuff he put out 2 years ago. It sounds like the sequel to Live Rust, so only us oldsters care.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APhisugDseM

              1. Thanks. I have always liked Live Rust.

          2. A southern man don’t need him around, anyhow…

            1. At least he was able to admit Skynyrd’s song was better than his.

              1. Wow, that was generous, but correct.

          3. I liked his last album with Crazy Horse.

        2. I’m 43 and I still pick up Weezer records when they come out. They haven’t released anything consistently good since The Green Album in 2001 (although the first 3-4 tracks on Maladroit were strong before it came off the rails).

          Am I disappointed each and every time? Yes, yes I am…Yet for some reason I find myself hoping that “this time will be different, this time it will rawk!” only to find myself once again disappointed. I am not expecting this round to go any differently…

          That said their best work has been with Ric Ocasek (from The Cars) producing and with him back behind the console perhaps…See, I’m doing it again…

          1. Rolling Stone gave it four stars, apparently.

            1. Really? I thought 4 stars was reserved for Springsteen records only…

          2. That said their best work has been with Ric Ocasek (from The Cars) producing

            You mean Mr. Porizkov. 😉 (I can’t believe they’re still married after 25 years.)

            1. Who says that there are no opportunities, no hope for the common man?

              1. The mid 80s was the height of this opportunity cycle however. Ocasek/Porzikova and Joel/Brinkley gave us all a modicum of hope but alas it was a mirage as time has passed…

    1. Anyone under 45 give a shit about anything in that issue?

      I’m over 45 and am really curious about their treatment of Tea Party KKKontrolled areas!

  10. There is no defending this guy. Even Michael Moore is throwing this character under the bus.

    The problem with Obama is
    1. He’s a centrist and not a real liberal. This political climate needs a fighter Like Elizabeth Warren.

    2. He’s Black. America is just not ready for a centrist black president. And this is about as white washed as they come. He’s only 1/2 African and he’s not even an African American (Son of former slave).

    3. He’s Black. Although a good portion of White America elected Obama out of an Angered Stupor that GWB left them in, there’s that ‘Other White America’ that was just a sleeping Giant that woke up once they saw the N-G-R in office. People fucking freaked the fuck out.

    4. He was naive in believing that if he reached his hand across the isle that the others wouldn’t spit on it.

    5. The mess that GWB left us in required GOD to come in and fix. Obama is a rookie in every sense of the word.

    6. He never ever communicated to the world how he was being screwed. Take the ACA for example. In the original deal, there was a public option. Without it, the ACA really doesn’t work. And, he never spoke about it.

    OBAMA SUCKS!

    1. C-

      I’d go back and rework that some.

      1. You’re being harsh here. I’ll give this one a B. It’s more coherent than Tony or Shreek. I know that’s not saying much, but he deserves at least some credit.

        1. It’s more coherent than Tony or Shreek.

          Upon further reflection, I think you are correct – I’ll move it up to a B-.

          1. So, would that be a “B-OOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!!!” ?

      2. He does get bonus points for the Mitch Connor reference. Maybe he has taco-flavored kisses?

    2. I don’t think I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Pop quiz: how often a year do you use the phrase “fleet-footed”?

    3. Every President has problems in their second term or sometimes at the end of their first. Johnson did. Carter did. Clinton did. All of those Presidents, even Johnson were still defended by the Democratic Party and its voters.

      Now we get the first black President and things get a little rough in his second term like they always do and you and the rest of the party is saying he sucks.

      That is just fucking racism. People went to the wall defending Clinton and Carter even when it was hard. The first rough patch comes and people like you walk away from Obama, because when it comes down to it you are too embarrassed to stand by a black President when he needs you and things get tough.

      Sorry dude, but there is more to not being a racist than hanging a poster on your wall and voting for the popular black guy. There is one good thing about this whole thing. We are finding out who Obama’s real supporters are and who the racists who just voted for him to hide that fact are.

      Thanks for self identifying pal.

      1. Not too harsh please. We certainly want to encourage them to put up Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

        1. Ugh!

          She need heap big wampum for that.

        2. Warren vs Paul.

          Anything else is the shit sandwich deal.

    4. Cartman removes her hair and “Ms. Lopez”, in a male voice, makes the confession that her real name is Mitch Conner, a con man who has been moving around from town to town.

      1. He almost makes me forget about……tacos.

    5. Progressives are truly pathetic creatures. You went apeshit for Obama in 2008 and now that he’s proven an abysmal failure you’re going to go apeshit for Elizabeth fuckin’ Warren?

      But hey, if progressives were capable of self-awareness and reflection they wouldn’t be progressives, would they?

      1. You knew it was coming because the ideology is never wrong. Even still, after all of the nauseating “this is our time” shit they put out, to hear them no try and claim “Obama was not a liberal” is especially galling.

        1. I noted the part about Obama reaching “across the [a]isle.” Haha, no. The Democrats made it very clear in 2009 that they had won and were in control of Congress and didn’t need Republicans at all.

      2. Hey, if you can’t trust a lawyer who worked for a fortune 5000 insurance company as it tried to deny disability claims by people who had worked with asbestos, who can you trust?

        1. And in fairness, she tried to make up for it by being a slumlord on the side. So there is that.

          1. She also flipped a foreclosed house and nearly didn’t get her PhD because one advisor thought her thesis was basically academic fraud.

      3. The polls are clear that barely anyone is excited about Warren. Liberals less than others.

    6. Shorter Mitch Connor: “Obama who? Hmmm…the name rings a bell, but I can’t quite place him.” [hurriedly dumps “Yes We Can” placards in garbage and scrapes five Obama stickers off his car.]

      1. Give it a year or so and Mitch will be on here talking about what a crime it was that the Republicans gave the country a President like Obama.

    7. This political climate needs a fighter Like Elizabeth Warren.

      Just because she’s a Native American she must be a “fighter”? God, you’re racist.

    8. He was naive in believing that if he reached his hand across the isle that the others wouldn’t spit on it.

      Which isle? Martha’s Vineyard?

    9. “He’s Black” = I’m racist since I think this matters, but it’s America’s fault.

    10. So, Obama was just put upon by society?

  11. They were sending me the magazine free and I cancelled it. This is why.

  12. New sockpuppet ALERT!

  13. Several years ago I ended up with a year’s subscription to that rag after buying some tickets from Ticketmaster. It was terrible. A year later, before they could bill me, I sent a very sarcasmic email to the subscription department. The rags stopped appearing in the mail. Horrible magazine. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

    1. The sad fact is that as crazy as this sounds it could be a good magazine if it wanted to be. Music and entertainment magazines are uniformly horrible. If Rolling Stone ever decided to be fearless and actually subversive, it would fill an enormous need. Fat chance of that ever happening of course.

      1. They do run good stuff sometimes, largely because they’re such a big outlet that there’s plenty of good journalists who’d love to write something for them. But the overall ethos these days is summed up by that cover.

        1. In the year that those rags were deposited into my mailbox, I made a point of thumbing through every one. I may have found one article that interested me. Maybe two.

          In a year.

          That’s just terrible.

        2. overall ethos pathos these days is summed up by that cover.

          Fixed ya, Big J.

        3. They need to bring back P.J. O’Rourke to stir up some shit.

          1. They need to bring back P.J. O’Rourke to stir up some shit.

            Too anti-establishment. And even O’Rourke is softening on that.

    2. a very sarcasmic email

      You sent them hundreds of DM links?

      1. I should have. At least the DM has stuff that’s worth reading.

        1. C’mon, nobody reads any DM links; it’s pictures both alluring and grotesque.

          1. Compared to Rolling Stone, DM is totally worth reading.

            1. That’s damning by faint praise

  14. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success

    When was he a critic?

    1. Oh, nevermind, I’ll continue reading, just a lil bit:

      Back in 2008, when many liberals were wildly enthusiastic about his candidacy and his press was strongly favorable, I was skeptical. I worried that he was naive, that his talk about transcending the political divide was a dangerous illusion given the unyielding extremism of the modern American right. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me that, far from being the transformational figure his supporters imagined, he was rather conventional-minded: Even before taking office, he showed signs of paying far too much attention to what some of us would later take to calling Very Serious People, people who regarded cutting budget deficits and a willingness to slash Social Security as the very essence of political virtue.

      1. Professionally I am in Talent Acquisition/Recruiting and I have seen job candidates like Obama numerous times.

        They are good at interviewing.
        They are good at presenting their positions/thoughts/beliefs.
        They are good at convincing you that they are a “thought leader”.

        They get hired but within 90 days you find out…

        They cannot lead
        They cannot build relationships/trust/goodwill
        They cannot execute on any of the things they promised/committed to in an interview.
        They blame everyone else for their failure(s) to deliver

        Simply put, there is no “there” there.

        Some people are good at getting the job, others are good at the job.

        In business you can cut your losses and move on…in politics – you are stuck with a bad hire for far longer…

        1. This is why interviews are generally not a great way to hire someone. Assuming the person has the base skills necessary for the job, you can teach them pretty much anything they need the know to do the job. What you can’t fix, however, is character and a toxic personality. And interviews rarely identify that. And in fact, people with such personalities often excel at interviews.

          1. But HR loves them.

          2. You are correct.

            There was a study done at Michigan State about 15 years ago that concluded that interviewing resulted in making the correct hiring decision roughly 57% of the time. So in other words, barely better than a coin flip.

            It’s about how you structure the interview. Standard behavior style questions are bunk…There is a guy named Lou Adler who pushes a far more aggressive approach that is fairly interesting but rather far off topic for this thread…Heck I came to comment on Weezer…

            1. I recently gave a reference for a colleague, whom I really like. I told the person doing the hiring that I didn’t know their clients or how their practice worked so I couldn’t comment on what kind of a fit the person in question would be. What I could say was that the person was technically competent, absolutely trustworthy and conscientious.

              To me at least, those are the only things that matter. Even if the person has their quirks, if they are those three things, you can figure out how to make them work as an employee. If they don’t have one of those, you are fucked.

              1. References are a WHOLE other kettle of fish. In my 20 years in this line of work I have never and I mean NEVER had a bad reference check on a candidate.

                When the candidate provides the references and companies have a strict “confirmation of employment only” policies in place they no longer have value.

                1. I agree about references. My dad was a manager and he considered references worthless, especially when it is their old boss. My father’s thinking was that as a boss trashing one of your employees is really trashing yourself. If the guy sucks why did you hire him and why couldn’t you fix him? So no boss is going to do it. Worse, a boss who would is likely to be lying trying to torpedo his employee’s candidacy so he doesn’t lose him or giving a good reference for a bad employee hoping to unload him on someone else. Either way you are unlikely to get the truth.

        2. They cannot lead
          They cannot build relationships/trust/goodwill
          They cannot execute on any of the things they promised/committed to in an interview.
          They blame everyone else for their failure(s) to deliver

          Sounds like most of the “leadership” where I work.

        3. I wish I had the vocabulary to properly express the contempt I have for your field.
          I have never been treated more shabbily by any profession than by yours.

          One example of your field’s shamelessness is how you will not forward on a candidate to a hiring manager if you find out that the candidate has already applied directly to the firm. This has happened multiple times to me and to others I know. You guys all have access to the same sites and databases (ie. takeo) so you know who has applied where and actively prevent hiring managers from hooking up with candidates that won’t get you a commission.
          Also, most of the time when recruiters contact a candidate, they are just fishing for references to other candidates to add to their databases.
          And I have to mention the fake jobs you advertise for – the same jobs with the same wording that appear year after year on your websites.

          Worst of all is that since HR Departments have become little more than compliance/legal departments, job seekers are forced to deal with you shysters.

          Oh, and fuck you.

          1. “taleo”

        4. In business you can cut your losses and move on…in politics – you are stuck with a bad hire for far longer…

          Not sure what business you’re in, but I was stuck with bad hires for far longer than Obama’s been president.

      2. Even before taking office, he showed signs of paying far too much attention to what some of us would later take to calling Very Serious People, people who regarded cutting budget deficits and a willingness to slash Social Security as the very essence of political virtue.

        cue up the sage soundtrack: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      3. given the unyielding extremism of the modern American right

        *barf* Romney made an obvious play to the middle and yet we still have to listen to this shit.

        1. If you really think about it, Romney as President would have been JFK without the Marilyn Monroe fucking.

          From the Libertarian or conservative perspective, that is really damning Romney with faint praise. But when you think about how liberals worship Kennedy, it shows how mendacious and idiotic their talking points against Romney really were.

          1. But when you think about how liberals worship Kennedy, it shows how mendacious and idiotic their talking points against Romney really were.

            It also shows how completely off the rails their idealogy has become. Yet it’s “the American right” that’s “extreme”.

        2. Romney made an obvious play to the middle and yet we still have to listen to this shit.

          Yes, but he also picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, who wanted to convert Medicare to a voucher system 10 years from now, block grant Medicaide, and maybe someday do something about reforming Social Security to give some people a choice of having some of their SS money invested push grannies off a cliff, leave poor people to die in the streets for wont of medical care, and let Wall Street gamble with people’s retirements.

          1. When you’re remarkably similar to your opponent, you turn him into a monster.

            You should see political races in Seattle.

            As The Stranger once put it, “only in Seattle can an affirmative action supporting, reliable liberal be painted as a right-wing extremist.”

          2. And as I recall, he wanted to put women into binders and take away their birth control.

            1. And put gays in cages.

    2. I’m guessing because Obama didn’t spend enough?

      Or maybe other critics don’t count?

      Or maybe they’re impressed that *even Paul Krugman* defends Obama?

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s just going to come down to racism, and I haven’t (nor will I) read the article.

        Well, ok, it was written by Krugman so I’m guessing something something his heart was in the right place and would have spent more had it not been for something something.

    3. He complained that the Stimulus was too small by a quadrillion dollars.

      1. Exactly. It’s phony criticism and it’s win-win for Krugman. If the stimulus “works” and all the promises made by Summers, etc., come true, then Krugman says “well it was obviously preferable to no stimulus. Keynes FTW.” If it doesn’t work (it didn’t), then he says that it simply wasn’t big enough.

        1. “The patient died after being bled insufficiently to reset the humours.”

          1. Think how quickly he would have died had we not done that?

      2. And needed an alien attack to really get going.

      3. He complained that the Stimulus was too small by a quadrillion dollars.

        He was doing that on NPR back in 2008. Hourly.

    4. “The Nobel Prize-winning economist”

      Well they started off flat wrong.

      There is no Nobel prize in economics.
      Nobel never established one.

      It’ a Swedish bank prize

  15. Rolling Stone or AARP Magazine?
    http://www.aarp.org/magazine/
    Compare and Contrast.

    1. AARP mag has more entertainment coverage?

    2. Holy shit! Scott Bakula is 60?

      1. Oh boy

    3. The areas of interest are similar, but AARP somehow seems more hip about it.

  16. Move over Philip Roth, we finally found a worst alternative history writer: http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..a-20141008

  17. In case you guys are wondering why the esteemed musicians gracing the cover of Rolling Stone sounds like a a farewell tour setlist from the early 1990’s, that’s largely because no one born after 1980 buys/reads/consumes/or otherwise cares about print media.

  18. Rolling Stone has published Jesse Myerson and recently did a hack job of an “expose” on the Koch Brothers that included the clam that patriarch Fred Koch did business in the Soviet Union in 1929 despite “Stalin’s evil being widely known”.

    Yes, we all know American progressives were condemning Stalin in 1929. Walter Duranty’s bold reporting from inside the belly of the beast about the human rights abuses and total degradation of the people still inspires journalists to this very day!

    1. Speaking of scummy journalism, I watched the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary this week on the Boston College points shaving scandal that happened back in the late 70s. Leslie Viser broke the story first in the Boston Globe. The stupid bitch named the wrong players under investigation. She named a player who was never under investigation and entirely innocent. As a result of the story the professional team in Europe the guy was playing for immediately cut him and he never got another contract again. It took him three years to get the Globe to print a retraction and by that time his playing career was over.

      And to this day she doesn’t seem to even feel bad about it. She just said “well I was really passionate about breaking the story and my source just had the wrong name”. It was jaw dropping.

      1. Whoops! Butterfingers!

    2. That article was right after praising Pete Seeger for a lifetime of opposition to Stalin.

      1. No way. Seriously? They really know how to put things down the memory hole I guess.

        1. Oh. No, I was being sarcastic. They probably did have a hagiography of Pete Seeger after he died though. Let’s look.

          http://www.rollingstone.com/mu…..4-20140128

          Darn, no mention of his former support for Stalin.

      2. oddly enough the left never seemed too upset about Seeger ripping off a poor African and allowing him to die in poverty while his song made Seeger rich.

    3. “Fred Koch did business in the Soviet Union in 1929 despite “Stalin’s evil being widely known”.

      Except to Walter Duranty and the entire cohort of leftist “intellectuals” in the United States who were busy making excuses and apologies for him.

  19. I’m guessing the “In Defense of Obama” piece is actually just a pictorial of Kruggernuts sucking Obama’s cock and getting a big sloppy facial at the end. NTTAWWT, but gay Bukkake? No thanks, not my cup of tea.

    1. Whatever you think of gay Bukkake, it has to be more interesting the the rest of the magazine.

      1. I suppose if I had choice between looking at gay bukkake or reading Rolling Stone, I’d probably choose the Bukkake.

        1. Preferences are a relative thing.

        2. …actually if I had to choose between being in gay bukkake and reading Rolling Stone it would be a tough decision.

    1. That used to be one of my favorite albums. And he one of my fav guitarists. Dude could play.

    2. Motherfucker… now I gotta get this on CD or… something… whatever the young people get… shit. Dude can plizzay.

  20. What are you talking about, Mr. Walker? Jann Wenner is one hep catt!

  21. I can’t imagine anyone reading this ragtag, but it does make money doesn’t it? How can this be profitable?

    1. It probably isn’t. Few magazines are.

    2. Two words: dentist’s offices.

    3. It’s a Zine for the 1%?

  22. Hunter S Thompson is rolling in his grave. Rolling Stone has been a mouthpiece of the establishment for years.

    1. Nah. Their children are the establishment at this point.

      1. Actually we’re about to pass their grandchildren into the establishment. Or at least a Reason poll on millennials told me so.

    2. Ha! And the establishment is now the aging hippies. But, the young (and old) “left” still fight the old white men of the 50’s and 60’s. Suckers!

  23. What is a Jann Wenner? What is a Weezer?

    1. And why is a dude named Jann?

      1. A man can be called Jayne.

  24. I always like the Miami Vice theme

  25. Hey Obama, I hear there’s a shadow on the faces of the men who fan the flames, of the wars that are fought in places – we can’t even say the names.

  26. Well most new bands are not too good.

  27. The most Rolling-Stoniest Rolling Stone cover ever? No.
    My mother’s boyfriend subscribes to this shit mag and occasionally gives me old magazines.

    The most absurd cover ever was published before the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA that simply read, “You Idiots!”
    The article itself was so wildly optimistic and devoid of critical thinking skills that I had to drink excessively for two days to drown out the stupid.

  28. Needs more Springsteen and Patti Smith to be the RollingStoniest. Not enough East Coast bias here.

  29. Mick Jagger, Neil Young, and Jackson Browne. This is a magazine to be displayed a geriatric medical clinic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.