For some inexplicable reason, I have been “blessed” with a Rolling Stone subscription for the past six months.

Didn’t ask for it. Not going to renew it. And sure as hell, I’m not going to pay for it. And the vast majority of the copies hit the recycling pile without being opened.

I did look at some of them and concluded: It’s awful.

In high school and maybe a little bit in college, I would look at a copy in the library – back when it was oversized and mostly about music. And maybe an article on why the military industrial complex would make us zombies or something.

Now, it is filled with addle-minded rants, complete absorption of the Obama agenda and articles about musicians who make forgettable music but are still hopelessly cooler than I could ever be.

It’s like being lectured endlessly by your semi-wasted shrill hippie dad.

Take the Jan 21 issue that I had handy. A long diatribe about how there is a huge anti-global warming conspiracy led by the oil companies and lobbyists which overstate how much our energy costs will go up (only the amount, mind you, not the fact that they are going to go up with cap and trade). Never mind that Republicans hires speed readers to read the bill since the length of time for review was nowhere near the promised five days. Never mind that the Democrats didn’t need any Republicans to pass it in the first place. Never mind the unfolding Climategate”  scandal at East Anglia University. (Somebody ridiculously blinkered to get their primary news from Rolling Stone wouldn’t know about any of the data faking scandal.)

Then we’re greeted with the profiles of about a dozen and a half global warming skeptics who are responsible for destroying the planet (including Warren Buffet and none other than Dick Gephardt!).

I’ve said it before. Watch Buffet and Bill Gates on global warming. If they aren’t putting their chips there, it’s a red flag.

I assume most of Rolling Stone readers get their news from the Daily Show. Otherwise they would have to look long and hard to find someone dumber that they could beat in an argument if they relied on Rolling Stone as their primary source of knowledge.

As for the magazine, because other than a few album reviews, a couple of worshiping articles about bands that essentially end up providing the first 40 minutes of material for a future episode of “Behind the Music”, and some blah, blah, blah, Lady Gaga, there’s not much to discuss. Besides the already mentioned lefty pap.

I’d cancel my free subscription (save paper to help the planet, you know), but there’s no means to do so on their website, and there’s no phone number anywhere in the magazine.

Maybe the Rolling Stone publisher DOES know what they’re pushing.

When you have to puff up your issue numbers to advertisers by giving free subscriptions to 40-something suburban dads, you’ve got a pretty big problem.