To the intellectuals out there, Mick makes an appearance in the new NEW YORKER in an article about the last W.E.F. meeting in Davos, Switzerland

It's just in passing in a long article about the last World Economic Forum meeting, but check out the March 5, 2012 NEW YORKER MAGAZINE for a close up of Mick's appearance there that was only mentioned "at a distance" in the general press at the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 22:49 by bv.

Thanks! My New Yorkers are piling up and there it was on top.
I've been reading the magazine since I was in high school. Thank God, it hasn't changed as much as newspapers have.

Quote
stonesrule
Thanks! My New Yorkers are piling up and there it was on top.

LOL - mine too!!

It is impossible to subscribe and not let them pile up... Thanks for the tip... I'll go find the article. I agree, stonesrule... We are lucky to have this publication, and that it has not lost its style. I remember when they first started with the glossy ads, and everyone thought it was the end. Some of the best writing anywhere.

Many thanks for the link,: Title5Take1 !

Quite a very long read for me ,not an English native speaker ,for the moment I'll stick to the "Jagger part" on page 2 of the article .

I had read many articles on the French internet about Jagger being there but not staying ,but the New Yorkers is very accurate .

The following link is interesting as well imo :

[www.theatlanticwire.com]

Mick Jagger Distances Himself From Davos, But Not Capitalism

<<The idea that a once-drug-addled, orgie-friendly '70s libertine is a closet conservative has captured the media's imagination for years. For just about as long, Jagger has tried to tamp down speculation about his politics as he did yesterday. “During my career I have always eschewed party politics and I came to Davos as a guest because I thought it would be stimulating and I have always been interested in economics and world events,” he said in a statement announcing his plans to leave the conference. “I now find myself being used as a political football and there has been a lot of comment about my political allegiances which are inaccurate. I think it is best I decline."<<



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

No doubt, Jagger votes Tory. Most people tend to vote like their parents. And in England it is very common that the lower middleclasses vote Tory to distance themselves from lower classes. It's like that English TV comedy "Keeping up appearances". The dissimulation in Jagger's case is the contrast between his libertine amoral rock star lifestyle and the conservative family values (i.e. bigotry) that constitutes the Tory Party.

Quote
Stoneage
conservative family values (i.e. bigotry)

... huh? bigotry is a family value??

Sorry, with sssoul. I meant the other way around: Family values, or rather those who propose them, can be bigoted in such way that they do not always follow their own believs. Is it any clearer now?

Conservatism, in the Cameron sense, eschews bigotry, ostensibly.

However, Labour did try to get Jagger onside as far back as 1968, when Tom Driberg approached Jagger to work for Labour. I think he said no, but I also think Driberg was more preoccupied with Jagger for sexual purposes.

Jagger was also knighted when Tony Blair was prime minister: he was approached by Alistair Campbell, and then the wheels were put in motion. I have always felt Blair to be a bit of a lickspittle, and that Keith gave him short shrift in Life, particularly when Blair sent a get well soon message after Keith falling out of the tree. I think Blair also had, or has, aspirations to be a rock star, and imagined himself, during the Ugly Rumours days, to be an amalgamation of Paul Rodgers and Mick Jagger: though, fiscally, him and his successor did Rodger Britain in another sense.

I think Blair, in his pious sanctimonious manner has always come across as more Cliff Richard than rock n roll politician. At least we know what Cameron comes from, and what he is.

I think Mick made it very clear a couple of times that he does NOT vote the Tory Party. Watch Being Mick, he says he votes Labour again.

Being Mick was made prior to the expenses scandals, prior to the credit crunch, and prior to the non-event that was Gordon Brown's premiership.

I think it was also made prior to the New Labour fandango with the American far-right over Iraq, and the demise of Dr David Kelly.

Quote
Stoneage
they do not always follow their own beliefs. Is it any clearer now?

thanks for the explanation - if you mean they don't practice what they preach, i'd use the word hypocrisy for that
but anyway carry on

Quote
elunsi
I think Mick made it very clear a couple of times that he does NOT vote the Tory Party. Watch Being Mick, he says he votes Labour again.

Yeah but "Being Mick" is a 2001 film ...we are in 2012 now

Quote
Stoneage
No doubt, Jagger votes Tory. Most people tend to vote like their parents. (...) The dissimulation in Jagger's case is the contrast between his libertine amoral rock star lifestyle and the conservative family values (i.e. bigotry) that constitutes the Tory Party.

I don't agree on both points.
Political views are not herited from ones parents. We all learned to think for ourselves, didn't we?
And the way we live our lifes is not a reflection of our political views. I Love my family and live a rather conservative
life with them. Stil that does not keep me from voting progressive liberal (in a dutch fashion).
Others should be free to make other choices. So the way I live my life does not say anything
about my political views.

I guess the same goes for a lot of other people, including Mick.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 10:14 by marcovandereijk.

I think, as you get older, you tend to agree more with the Daily Telegraph as opposed to The Guardian.

Gee...don't compare Cliff to the ambitious Tony Blair.

I know Cliff and there's a lot more to him than his image.

I wouldn't doubt that Mick is conservative... to a degree but...I consider myself to be fairly liberal and yet I listen to conservatives point of view because it helps me understand why I feel they way I do on many issues.

I've made many friends through amicable discussion even when most of the time we either agree to disagree or just agree there is a problem but not on the solution.

Mick did NOT say he voted Labour in Being Mick (I have the DVD).

This is the actual (sarcastic) exchange after he marks his ballot:

CAMERAMAN: "Are you going to let on?" [regarding which way he voted]

MICK: "Of course not. I'm not going to let on to you! I just can't tell you if I'm voting AGAIN for the Socialist Workers Party."

The Socialist Workers Party is a small far-left party (totally apart from the Labour Party) and Mick was joking that he'd voted for the SWP, when obviously he didn't.

A tax dodging centimillionaire with a knighthood like Sir Mick would be anathema to this party >>> [www.swp.org.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 09:54 by Title5Take1.

I don't think it's unfair to assume that he favors Tories in G.B and the Democrats in the U.S . But what about Keith? I don't think he votes but I read somewhere that he supported the Iraqi war. Is he also a closet conservative?

Quote
Stoneage
I don't think it's unfair to assume that he favors Tories in G.B and the Democrats in the U.S . But what about Keith? I don't think he votes but I read somewhere that he supported the Iraqi war. Is he also a closet conservative?

everybody who doesnt say exactly what you think they should is obviously
a right-winger. who could disagree with such airtight logic?

Touché, Revvy! Maybe I should settle down on politics for a while before I develop a right-wing complex? For me politics is small talk so I will always have a hard time staying out of it though...

Sir Mick is a fully assimilated member of the Elite now.

Sadly.

I wonder if he remembers what it's like to be at the bottom of the pile with no money and no hope (did he ever know?)

I think Keith is hugely Conservative in his views: threatening suitors with knives is a little to the right of Norman Tebbitt. He's also unafraid to use physical violence in protecting himself, or his loves, sometimes to an extreme.

So Keith is a hands on conservative then like John Wayne or Tony Soprano, Tom Casagranda? Never leaves the house without a piece...

I don't know, but possibly yes, Stoneage. There's a sense of the frontiersman about Keith: maybe he was exposed to way too many Westerns as a kid.

Although, he could be "A walking contradiction" to quote Kris Kristofferson, in that in some instances he could be left-leaning, and in other instances, right leaning.

I was pro the Iraq War myself, until, as a classics scholar, I was perturbed at the cultural vandalism committed by the US Army and their desecration of ancient art from the days of the epic of Gilgamesh.

I was also pro Afghanistan, due to the desecration of the buddhas by the Taliban. I am exceedingly against cultural savagery, be it on both sides.

Quote
tomcasagranda
I think, as you get older, you tend to agree more with the Daily Telegraph as opposed to The Guardian.

The Telegraph is far too left-wing. The Daily Mail is the one true voice of rational thought.

Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't know, but possibly yes, Stoneage. There's a sense of the frontiersman about Keith: maybe he was exposed to way too many Westerns as a kid.

Although, he could be "A walking contradiction" to quote Kris Kristofferson, in that in some instances he could be left-leaning, and in other instances, right leaning.

I was pro the Iraq War myself, until, as a classics scholar, I was perturbed at the cultural vandalism committed by the US Army and their desecration of ancient art from the days of the epic of Gilgamesh.

I was also pro Afghanistan, due to the desecration of the buddhas by the Taliban. I am exceedingly against cultural savagery, be it on both sides.

It's good that you oppose warfare on the grounds of the damage it causes to old statues.

I agree with Mick's decision not to stay at that conference; he does not need to be dragged into political arguments BUT I do believe Mick does lean towards the Democratic party in the U.S based on his song Sweet Neo-Con and his obvious approval of the Obama administration. Very interesting thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 19:44 by mickschix.

Quote
stonesrule
Thanks! My New Yorkers are piling up and there it was on top.
I've been reading the magazine since I was in high school. Thank God, it hasn't changed as much as newspapers have.

It's just a snotty version of the Daily Worker, with better cartoons.

Father Ted,

I assume you are being ironical, stating the Daily Mail is the true voice of reason. I often get the feeling Richard Littlejohn writes his column on toilet walls first: what a rabble-rouser !

Though Joe Strummer went from being left-leaning to reading the Telegraph at the time of his demise.

I think you would find that "thou shalt not kill" extends to all races, and, in most instances, I oppose war.

I also oppose cultural vandalism, cultural desecration, and cultural ignorance.

However, vile regimes, such as The Taliban, and the Baath'ist regime in Iraq, need to be removed. I would add that if the Marsh Arabs were gassed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and the Taliban continued to express disgustingly sexist policies towards women, and returned Afghanistan to the stone-age, then it was no bad thing that they were removed.

Stupidity, such as World War I, The Falklands Conflict in 1982, and the Americans in Greneda should never have taken place.

I would also add that rabid mad-dog dictators do need to be removed: be they as far back as Caligula in Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, who was deposed of by the Praetorian Guard, Richard III at Bosworth Field, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Saddam in Iraq. So, I would agree, apart from cultural vandalism, to the removal of dictators.