July 21st cover of the new yorker

[TheMercenary]

Yea, I find people who are getting all upset about it as often failing to call BS on equally offensive things that have been posted about McCain and Bush to be hypocrites. (And don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush). Maybe not you specifically, but all the hoopla over it is stupid. Is it because he is the first black man? Is it because they are picking on his somewhat militant wife? Is it satire or is it reflecting current perceptions which the mainstream electorate believe? I am not whining about it, just discussing. I agree, they are all crap. Please don't get all offended and take it personal, I was just wondering what you were thinking.

Sure I read it the title. But I did not take it literally to mean that he neither had any to begin with or that the reader felt like they should grow some. I think Obama has already shown that he has some pretty big balls to step up to the plate and run for President.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

snip--Please don't get all offended and take it personal, I was just wondering what you were thinking.

None taken.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sure I read it the title. But I did not take it literally to mean that he neither had any to begin with or that the reader felt like they should grow some. I think Obama has already shown that he has some pretty big balls to step up to the plate and run for President.

Here we disagree a little bit, perhaps just in semantics. I don't think you need balls to run for President, I think you need to be nuts.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Here we disagree a little bit, perhaps just in semantics. I don't think you need balls to run for President, I think you need to be nuts.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

snip--

Is it because they are picking on his somewhat militant wife?

--snip

um, cite? Define? Clarify?

[Shawnee123]

That's a hall o' fame quote if I ever saw one!

[Troubleshooter]

Malkin is nothing but a clueless harpy,in the truest literal sense.

The only use I have for her mouth has nothing to do with speaking.

And when I saw the cover I took it to be a satire of the republican view of Barak and Michelle.

[Sundae]

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
I don't know the politics of the New Yorker for a start.

But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

I know you have this whole freedom of the press thing, but mis-information is a powerful tool. There must be plenty of people as ignorant as me but who have access to a ballot paper. This can't help, surely?

Why not draw cartoons of other candidates peeking out from under KKK hoods, setting up a lynching for Obama after a lawn cross burning party?

Some things are just offensive. And yes, I thought so after the Danish debacle too.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
I don't know the politics of the New Yorker for a start.

But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

I know you have this whole freedom of the press thing, but mis-information is a powerful tool. There must be plenty of people as ignorant as me but who have access to a ballot paper. This can't help, surely?

Why not draw cartoons of other candidates peeking out from under KKK hoods, setting up a lynching for Obama after a lawn cross burning party?

Some things are just offensive. And yes, I thought so after the Danish debacle too.

The New Yorker is a left wing publication written about 5 grade levels higher than say Newsweek or Time. Their readership is pretty well self-selected. Almost nobody who subscribes would be confused about intent. If a right winger like Bush is on the cover looking like a chimp it's because the readers know he's about that smart. If Obama is in Arab gear it's because , although it is a common poser magazine left casually on the coffee table next to the un-read scientific American, all subscribers are assumed smarter than those middle America types who believe this stuff... Does that help?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Griff

it is a common poser magazine left casually on the coffee table next to the un-read scientific American

I love this description

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by tw

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims?

Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.
I wouldn't have known what was on the cover of the New Yorker either if it hadn't been posted here.

If I see or hear something I find offensive I will comment on it.
I can't comment on things I don't see and hear.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.

Not to worry, neither does he.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not to worry, neither does he.

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

I refute your incorrect assertions. Both are wrong.

Originally Posted by tw

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

No double standard. One standard.

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

You know full well why this is tasteless. If you do not, you are beyond my ability to educate or inform.

Originally Posted by tw

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

There's a single intelligent standard--my own (you have yours, too, apparently) and a fundamental part of that standard is to consider the source; to consider the intent. The New Yorker, Rush Limbaugh and Mad Magazine are different sources, with different intentions, and I hold them to different standards.

Originally Posted by tw

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Please explain why you feel justified in speaking for most wackos.

Originally Posted by tw

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

Dammit... I kept up with you almost the whole way and you slipped the iron bonds of logic right at the end.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Anyone who doesn't see this as satire, sees it as truth?... or an attempt to reinforce untruths?

Are those the three camps, on this cover?

Can we break the first group into two groups?
A- Those that think it clever/funny, because it's so obvious it's a poke at silly accusations.
B- People who recognize it's satire, but are offended because they think they are smarter than the unwashed masses, that are too stupid to recognize satire, and would believe it's true?