July 21st cover of the new yorker
Yes I get the point, but I think it was a stupid idea anyway. That picture is going to stick with the average Joe long after the point is lost.
.
.
Obama campaign: "Tasteless and offensive"
McCain campaign: "Agree completely"
Did anyone else here listen to the piece on... hm... Marketplace? something like that... it was an interview with Latinas for McCain in Nevada (or some such...) and one of the interviewees was so apoplectic about Obama's Muslim-ness that the producers of the story felt it necessary to cut the story and interject a narrator/reporter voice saying "...for the record, Obama is a Christian..." And then the reporter challenged the woman, and she just rolled right past his correction as if he had suggested the Tooth Fairy was real. She was POS-I-TIVE.
There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.
Obama campaign: "Tasteless and offensive"
McCain campaign: "Agree completely"
Did anyone else here listen to the piece on... hm... Marketplace? something like that... it was an interview with Latinas for McCain in Nevada (or some such...) and one of the interviewees was so apoplectic about Obama's Muslim-ness that the producers of the story felt it necessary to cut the story and interject a narrator/reporter voice saying "...for the record, Obama is a Christian..." And then the reporter challenged the woman, and she just rolled right past his correction as if he had suggested the Tooth Fairy was real. She was POS-I-TIVE.
There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.
Yea, I heard it. I am an NPR junkie. I have even had to correct more than a few local red-necks that the bit about him being Muslim is false and was most likely started by some hard core religious right conservatives when the debates first started and the group was bigger, because that story has been around for quite a while.
I am still not completely sure why they put that picture on the cover of such a major publication. There is a lot of questions being asked about a number of the issues raised as detailed by many different aspects of that picture.
Ostensibly to mock, to satirize. But I think the net effect will be to inflame.
I think Obama's plenty "man enough". There's no cognitive dissonance for *me* to find the cartoon tasteless and offensive, and to consider him (public figure or otherwise) "man enough". I wonder if her tut-tutting of those who find these remarks tasteless and offensive, her implication that those who complain need to "grow some [balls]" includes McCain? He is on record as finding the cartoon objectionable.
I'm not a mental-recession-whiner-American. I have grown a pair. I find the cartoon stupid and offensive and I am man enough to complain about it, and if Ms Malkin objects to that, she can kiss my ass in the county square.
I find it hard to believe that she is complaining about it as much as pointing out the obvious duplicity of people who are complaining about it as tasteless and offensive.
Are you "man enough" to admit that the examples she posted of Bush, Rice, and McCain are equally offensive if not much more offensive than the one on the cover of the New Yorker?
edit: what is with all the Man Enough and Grow Some Balls talk anyway. Are you doubting your manliness?
What's her point, mercy? *That* is her point? That those who find it tasteless and offensive are hypocrites? May I fairly conclude that you share that position, since you brought it up and called it a "good point"?
You're suggesting that since I find it tasteless and offensive I'm a hypocrite?
Yes, those other cartoons are tasteless and offensive. There are LOADS of crap out there that I find objectionable, but don't waste my time whining about. Furthermore, one tasteless cartoon does not in any way justify another one. Yep, they're all crap. So what?
wrt "man enough" and "grow some balls", for pete's sake, mercy. Did you not read the TITLE of the column you linked to? "Grow a pair, Obama". Come to class, 'k?
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.
snip--Please don't get all offended and take it personal, I was just wondering what you were thinking.
None taken.
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.
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.
:D
That's a hall o' fame quote if I ever saw one!
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.
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.
I'm with Sundae on this one.
There are people who will argue with me until they're blue in the face that Obama is indeed a Muslim. I understand when they say they are poking fun at those who believe such nonsense, but I can't help but think there is something, or someone, encouraging that notion. Most of the people I speak of would never read The New Yorker; most of them probably don't even know of it, but the image is out there, just the same.
I'm no big Obama supporter. I distrust him for other reasons, but certainly not because I can't look beyond a different name and ethnicity than my own.
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?
Yes, what he said...however, though I pointed out that these people with whom I argue do not, in all likelihood, read the New Yorker, even Homeless Guy knew of the picture and was talking about it last night.
It brought a certain infamy to the magazine; their sales will probably be higher than ever before.
it is a common poser magazine left casually on the coffee table next to the un-read scientific American
I love this description
It helps - sort of.
Except I don't really know the grade levels of Newsweek or Time either :)
I sort of get that the people it is intended for will laugh up their sleeves. Ohoho, Osama the Muslim. But I still stand by what I said above. Drawing Bush as a chimp does not suggest to anyone - within the readership or without - that Bush actually is a shaved ape. However this drawing could be true. I know it isn't. After all the hoo-ha about his Christian connections it is hard to believe that people could think it true, but Shawnee's post confirms it.
It's not close-to-the-edge humour imho. It's all-too-easily-misinterpreted humour. My response is - must try harder, satire is a stiletto not a cosh.
"...un-read SciAm..." Sad.
[cue flashback]
My friend is middle school, P, had an enormous cache of this magazine. We would hang out at his house after school a lot, and I *loved* reading them. Two of my favorite recurring aspects were Mathematical Games by Marvin Gardner and the endpage where some piece of technology was explained.
I read all the articles too. But I found that I didn't understand all of what I read. I could always start each article, I could always comprehend the conclusion of each article. And I usually got lost midway through each article as the depth of the science exceeded the height of my understanding. I found that as the months and years passed, the deep part in the middle became narrower. Believe me, it was still quite deep, but the parts I didn't have a clue about grew fewer in number.
My subscriptions over the years have lapsed, and now I just get it occasionally as a luxury impulse item at the checkstand. I still read through all the articles, I still find stuff I didn't know before. Now, if I find something interesting and over my head, I can research it further and faster than I could in when I was back in school.
Scientific American is one of my all time favorite magazines.
[/flashback]
For the record, I view with skepticism the proposition that subscribers to a given magazine is a reliable indicator that they are smarter than those middle America types... It has been my experience that stereotypes' truthfulness and breadth are correct in inverse proportions. It's also true that I had my sense of humor shot off in the war.
I'm with your last paragraph, in a weird way.
I view with disdain the proposition that those who subscribe to "mind-reads" are doing so because they think they are smarter or they want other people to think they're smarter; some people read such magazines because they want to use their brain for something more than, say, Maxim, Glamour, or Hot Rod God.
And no, I do not subscribe to the New Yorker, Scientific American, Glamour, or Maxim. Hot Rod God, however, is a bastion of information about rods, things hot, and the occasional god. :)
David Horsey, *multiple* Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, claims to
"get it".
He says you "irony challenged literalists" don't get it. I say we "intelligence burdened realists" do get it; we get it enough to tell the New Yorker "ur doin it rong!"
But it's different because people already believe it is the literal truth.
Sheesh.
At the New Yorker and David Horsey, not the Cellar.
snip--
Is it because they are picking on his somewhat militant wife?
--snip
um, cite? Define? Clarify?
It has been widely reported in the press that during her years at Princeston she had significant issues about race and her discovery of how she would fit into "White" society. Princeston put her thesis under lock and key when they entered the race for the White House. Why? I thought they fostered an open discussion. This has lead people, I imagine right-wing supporters to exploit this, hence branding her as "militant". You can read more here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
"Summary: On The McLaughlin Group, host John McLaughlin asked Clarence Page: "Do you think Michelle [Obama] -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?" McLaughlin later asked Page: "You don't think she's a black militant?" Several media figures have recently suggested that Obama has a "chip on her shoulder," including VDARE.com contributor Steve Sailer. "
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802240002
Michelle Obama Initiates Black Militant "Pound" Salute.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e1_1212634014
BigV, I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with any of this but I am providing links at your request to show that there is a perception out there.
I think Bill got it right:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001
And there is this:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670246FWIW Walgreens pulled the New Yorker from all the locations that carried it - nationwide.
I think Bill got it right:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001
Quite right?
O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"
Oh so he only wants to lynch the black if there's evidence. Well, that's progress.
That is HUGE for O'Reilly. :lol:
Quite right?
Oh so he only wants to lynch the black if there's evidence. Well, that's progress.
What's wrong with satire?
Sat-ire? Starts with S-A-T? Hmmm, could it be...SATAN? :lol:
Sorry, I don't know who he is and didn't realise it was a satirical radio phone in. My bad.
Sorry, I don't know who he is and didn't realise it was a satirical radio phone in. My bad.
It's not, I was yanking yer chain. I think it was just a figure of speech used out of contex. In other words, a poor choice of words.
Argh! Pick on the furriner day!
(thanks for admitting it - I would have been none the wiser)
What's wrong with satire?
He's hard to read and people keep
spelling his name wrong.It has been widely reported in the press that during her years at Princeston she had significant issues about race and her discovery of how she would fit into "White" society.
It might be healthy if more people used college to determine where they fit in the world. She apparently figured out her role. Her internal conflict was based on race. Mine was related to a largely dismantled rural society. Other's might have hang ups about religion or economics. College is often about discovering or reinventing yourself.
It might be healthy if more people used college to determine where they fit in the world. She apparently figured out her role. Her internal conflict was based on race. Mine was related to a largely dismantled rural society. Other's might have hang ups about religion or economics. College is often about discovering or reinventing yourself.
I can't agree more. But once discovery is made it is often remains as the buildiing block for your future goals and ideals about where you want to go in the world. I really don't anything should be used from your college years as some absolute snapshot into your current beliefs but once you become a public figure all bets are off. In this day and age of politics every leaf will be overturned and you are going to have to deal with whatever anyone finds. In this case she will just have to deal with it and show through her words and deeds that she is beyond some of the more radical ideas she expressed. Everybody changes as they age. I hope she has come around as well.
Right on, everyone gets to college with significant issues about something. It's commonly about how they fit in the world, for one reason or another.
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.
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.
@ t-dub:
OK, maybe it wasn't so much that it was tasteless as it was that it is stupid, boring, meaningless, sensationalistic, and lent a bit of credence to the wackos. Yeah, we get it. Many don't.
Oh, and I do find Rush et al offensive. Absolutely they have every right to be so, as the New Yorker has every right to be stupid. Sometimes, you just hope for better, ya know?
Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.
Not to worry, neither does he.
Not to worry, neither does he.
Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....
Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists ...snip....
Oh, hi Pot, where ya been?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who doesn't see this as satire, sees it as truth?... or an attempt to reinforce untruths? :confused:
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?
What? How many groups and sub groups are you talking about, xoB?
Your straight talk about believe/don't believe, understand/don't understand is easy enough to follow, but when you tag on the unnecessary because clause, you lose me.
By your definitions above, I belong in Group B. I recognize it's satire. I am offended. I am smarter than the unwashed masses too stupid to recognize satire that would believe it's true. Of. Course. Anyone who recognizes the satire here is *by definition* smarter than someone who doesn't recognize the satire.
I'm not gonna bite on your group three proposition; I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":
snip--
There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.
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.
So wacko extremist political broadcasters who originally promoted every stereotype parodied on Mad Magazine and the New Yorker covers - they can lie all they want - all but call Obama a nigger - and that is not tasteless? That is a double standard.
The New Yorker educated non-American who apparently don’t know so much overt hate and fear is promoted every day on the radio by about 300 wacko extremist talk show hosts. The New Yorker magazine just informed non-Americans how much hate of Obama is being promoted across America. They can promote that hate – and it is acceptable – considered tasteful? The New York can accurately define each ‘hate’ and be criticized?
Yes, we should not be reminded that a large minority of Americans “hate the nigger or ‘black panther radical’ or Muslim Obama”. Take your choice. All those words are being used overtly or covertly in wacko extremist circles. Therefore the New Yorker only reported the news - by using satire.
I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":
You're afraid people who have heard these accusations, but are unsure, will feel they must/might be true, because of this cover?
Or that people spouting this bullshit, will feel vindicated and point to this cover as proof?
I find it hard to believe it will really do any harm, ie, pushing the unsure into the hate camp. It definitely has prompted discussion of these issues by rational people... at least here. :D
You're afraid people who have heard these accusations, but are unsure, will feel they must/might be true, because of this cover?
Or that people spouting this bullshit, will feel vindicated and point to this cover as proof?
I find it hard to believe it will really do any harm, ie, pushing the unsure into the hate camp. It definitely has prompted discussion of these issues by rational people... at least here. :D
I think the surest way to kill lies like these is to expose them to the light of day--the more light, the more truth, the better.
You know as well as I do that a whispering campaign can be very effective. And the objective rational truth about a given subject is only a *part* of the equation that all people take into account when deciding what to think about issues like this.
And by issues, I mean any of the several messages suggested in the densely packed cartoon. For example, already in this thread Michelle Obama's [SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]"[/COLOR][/SIZE]militancy[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]"[/COLOR][/SIZE] has been discussed. mercy's repetition of that unfounded defamatory slur has gone largely unchallenged. I read the articles at the links he provided, and some of her thesis, and I didn't find any evidence to support such a claim. But unchallenged, such an assertion leaves a mark on people's perception.
Repetition and how a subject is presented make a real impact on how people perceive an issue, and that has a direct effect on people's actions.
This is a big deal to me because the stakes are quite high. What happens in this storyline has a direct impact on me--the contest for the office of president for my country. I find this kind of discussion, this kind of satire particularly distasteful because it is based on untruths. It is fearmongering of the lowest sort. I didn't like it when I saw it coming from other quarters, in other contests, or on other subjects.
For those whose mind is already made up, closed to further input, regardless of their position, I have nothing to offer. For those who are still willing to listen, and speak, there is more communication to be had. And while some spout bs like this cartoon, I will do my best to counter what I consider the negative effects of such communication. My best consists of this kind of dialog.
tw, I don't know what to say to you.
Your posts are hard to follow, but I'll say this.
I find this cartoon tasteless and offensive. Other hateful slurs, regardless of the subject or the speaker also offend me. I have a limited amount of energy and ability to counter such crap, but I do my best.
You may judge me, but don't put words in my mouth. We won't have much of a conversation if you're doing all the talking.
Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....
Who is Rush Limbaugh? someone you jack off to every night? Never heard of him.....
tw, I don't know what to say to you.
Your posts are hard to follow, but I'll say this.
I find this cartoon tasteless and offensive. Other hateful slurs, regardless of the subject or the speaker also offend me. I have a limited amount of energy and ability to counter such crap, but I do my best.
I would agree with you 100%.
Yea, I heard it. I am an NPR junkie. I have even had to correct more than a few local red-necks that the bit about him being Muslim is false and was most likely started by some hard core religious right conservatives when the debates first started and the group was bigger, because that story has been around for quite a while.
Wasn't it proven that Hillary's campaign started that rumor?
This is a big deal to me because the stakes are quite high. What happens in this storyline has a direct impact on me--the contest for the office of president for my country. I find this kind of discussion, this kind of satire particularly distasteful because it is based on untruths. It is fearmongering of the lowest sort. I didn't like it when I saw it coming from other quarters, in other contests, or on other subjects.
What I'm getting is, you feel this piece of satire will actually influence voters, will actually sway votes, will actually damage Obama's campaign.
I think you are taking it way too seriously.
If you think this is bad, wait till after the conventions, when the Rove trained gunslingers get into high gear. :eek:
o no they've started
[youtube]Sq30lapbC9c[/youtube]
[QUOTE=TheMercenary;469862]Who is Rush Limbaugh?[QUOTE]Playing dumb again Merc? Or just trying to outdue Urbane Guerrilla. Next time read Mad Magazine with more care.
I find this cartoon tasteless and offensive.
No cartoon can be sufficiently tasteless because of the subject. Subject is wacko extremists who hype these lies to others; who then blindly believe these myths. Accusations by right wing wackos are no different than brown shirts being told that Jews are vermin. Also proven because their 'Rush Limbaughs' told them it was so. A satire showing all the myths about Jews also would have mocked the liars - Nazis and their brown shirts. Instead, the world ignored those myths rather than satirize them.
Satire should exist on the front cover of every responsible magazine because these wacko extremists’ myths are that tasteless and dangerous. We cannot satirize how tasteless wacko extremists because they are dumb? Those with taste post satire with vengeance because - well how many good America lives are being wasted uselessly on another wacko right wing extremist lie - Saddam's WMDs. Satire about people such as TheMercenary could never be sufficiently tasteless. We should also see satire about what TheMercenary, et al will not ask; what every decent person asks: "When do we go after bin Laden."
Even bin Laden remains free because wacko extremists need him to promote their myths. The New Yorker can only be praised for showing that wacko extremists (including Rove) are that tasteless. New Yorker is praised for satirizing the problem - wacko extremists and their myths.
What makes the New Yorker cover so patriotic and wonderful? It is hilarious - and reality - and honest - and also called a summary of the news. As posted here, many non-Americans don't even kow how American are bombarded routinely with evil French and evil Nigerian, and evil Vietnamese, and evil Chinese, and evil Al Jezzera ... Tasteless hate by those who also invent these Obama myths is daily on American radio.
Without such mockery of wacko extremists, well, what do these same wacko extremists also want? War in Iran.
Did you read that Esquire magazine (Mar 2008?) article about Adm Fallon - former Central Command commander? He says he averted a 'Pearl Harbor' type attack on Iran. If we were that close to war, then the New Yorker magazine cover (that mocks these people like TheMercenary) is wonderful. Without satire about these tastelss people, then even an Iranian war becomes possibile. That New Yorker comic is not about Obama. It is about those who are America's greatest threat: wacko extremists who love more war and who even invented and promoted those Obama myths. The New Yorker did not mock tasteless people enough.
Who are most offended by that New Yorker comic? Wacko extremists.
All this attention to an inappropriate cover on a magazine that at best reaches 1,000,000 people has made more of this than anything. Are they "wacko extremists" at The New Yorker - I don't think so. Has their cover altered my perception of Obama? No!
I believe the vast majority of those who read that mag understand it was nothing more than it was - a stupid cover - ill-advised, inappropriate and distasteful. Let the damn thing die.
All the media attention to this and the real "wacko extremists" who pontificate here and elsewhere about it are the ones that are making a bigger issue out of it than anything. It has nothing to do with a grand conspiracy or Iran or anything else. It was a bad decision to publish it - and I hope they lose readers because of it. Yes, they got a lot of play out of it in the short term, but liong term it will not help them.
Who are most offended by that New Yorker comic? Wacko extremists.
Now, now, BigV is not a wacko extremist... just a mite serious.
tw, I find the toon tasteless and offensive. It loses all sense of satire when people begin believing it.
So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?
I thought the satire was that some people do believe that the stereotypes are true? Or at least that the media keeps on commenting on them.
So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?
Yes, yes. People believe in images more than words, in that there is at least some truth to images, if none in words, especially if published in The New Yorker.
So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?
I think this is exactly how people feel. It's outrage based on hubris.
I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.
There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?
How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?
Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?
Look at your sig:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.
xoB's statement is something of a trap.
Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.
I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.
And I think you over analyzing.
There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?
But we weren't discussing "other areas", were we.
How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?
No parsing is necessary for me, or deadbeater, or Jinx.
Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?
It's easily recognizable satire, because anyone with an IQ higher than a glass of water can see they are depicting the bullshit the anti-Obama troops are trying to scare people with.
Look at your sig:
This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.
xoB's statement is something of a trap.
Yes, it's a trap for anyone trying find a hidden agenda in a straight forward question. :rolleyes:
Take some aspirin, have a couple drinks, watch the Olympics and relax.
I asked deadbeater a question. He understood and answered it. That's all folks.
Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.
I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker, only have the ability to read at a highschool level, unlike most of our newspapers which are amied at a 5th grade level of reading. The New Yorker is just another rag that some people enjoy. My rags are The Atlantic and The Economist.
... The Economist.
I knew you were tw's sock puppet!
I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker,
I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.
I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.
I would submit that anyone who thinks they are de facto smarter than someone else based on what they read on a purely web based interaction is pretty foolish. We really know very little about each other here.
But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?
I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.
But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?
Maybe i can help here. I'm fairly sure that I fall under the catagory of "unwashed mass". I mean, i didn't even understand the cartoon when i first saw it. I figured it was some political slander meant to paint Obama as being pro the Iraq war or something similar. I don't watch (or read) news very often and have been obtaining practically all of my political information from the Cellar (on the rare occasion that i feel up to trying to glean some info from the mess that most of the political threads become after about a page or two).
Alot of people are similar to me in that they don't follow the news on a regular basis. I feel that these people would see this cartoon just so long as they have access to the internet. I don't read The New Yorker, and yet i've seen this cartoon in several places on the net. If i've seen it that often then many others have too.
The way i see it most people would come to one of three conclusions after seeing this political cartoon. The first would be to understand it to be satire (whether they approve or not doesn't matter). The scond would be like me and understand the message, who would then look for more info on it. It would be a gamble for them as to whether the source they find calls Obama a muslim or explains that it is satire. The last group are those who have already heard the rumor (and possibly believe it) and use this cartoon as proof/evidence that he is muslim.
This cartoon could be potentially damaging to Obama in that people who don't know much about the campaign could be led to believethat he is muslim. It doesn't matter whether or not they find out later that he's not because during the time they believe that, they'll be spreading the rumor even further.
Also, on that whole thing about whether the people who understand the cartoon are smarter or not, i think a better word to use is informed. those who understand this cartoon for what it is tend to be more informed on politics in general. That says nothing about someone's IQ, just about what they tend to read.
Sorry about the long post,
-Lena
Good points Lena, but it brings one question to mind.
I realize when planning a cover for a magazine it's more for the news stand, to entice people to buy it, rather than for the faithful subscribers/buyers. But is it The New Yorker's responsibility to worry about their cover might be seen across the internet? :confused:
I don't think that it is their responsibility; they are not the ones putting it up on the net after all.
But it would be ridiculus to think that they wouldn't assume that it would make it there eventually. The internet is the largest source of information readily available to people, and just about everything gets put on it at some point or other after all. It's impossible to think that the New Yorker would not have guessed that its cover would be put up on the net. In fact, it is quite likely that they counted on it to happen. I just don't think they counted on it to cause such a large uproar.
My understanding is that political cartoons are meant to inflame, critisize, and otherwise point out the bad things about politicians and the populas in general. This particular just received more attention than the others because, as Sundae Girl put it, we are a "country that is very wary of Muslims" and this touched a sore spot for us.
Thanks for listening.
OK, but it's not a political cartoon, at least in the traditional sense.
It may have been conceived to stir debate, by poking fun at the mud rakers, however.
But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?
I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.
Of course.
Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact. ;)
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.
usually it is the left half.
with as obese as our nation apparently is? I think not.
Of course.
Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact. ;)
Yes, but being below average doesn't make them morons.
Just gets them trending in that direction.
Nervous Nellies, of course, would immediately imagine Muslim rioting inspired by the Danish magazine situation and the EuroMuslim (yes, one word) inferiority complex. Puh-leeze. Those people probably thought the surge wouldn't do it, either -- there are disadvantages to being a toe-tag Democrat.
I still maintain that there are large numbers of Americans who would take the cover at face value and not look deeper to find the humor.
Exhibit A:
classicman's post in
Rumors and Truth. The reason this is making the rounds is that some folks believe it and pass it on without ever checking it out.
Exhibit B:
This guy's vote will count in November:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/photo.asp?PhotoID=887...
Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact. ;)
...
Of course that's not true. But I think you knew that.
I think I resemble that remark.
Well, below median.
Whatever that's going to mean for intellectual power.
The well below median end up in prison a lot. Correlation?
Of course that's not true. But I think you knew that.
In a normal distribution and given a large enough sample (all people) the difference between mean and median would be negligible.
But the truth is, I was being a smart ass.
But I think you knew that. :D
The September 29th cover of The Nation.
I'm surprised its that low - I think the percentage of idiots is at least 50.
Yeah here's how the different sides wind up with different "facts".
Headline: "33% American voters believe Obama is a Muslim"
2nd paragraph: "...almost one-third of American voters 'know' that Barack Obama is a Muslim or believe that he could be."
4th paragraph: "A Pew Research Center poll of survey released a few days back found that only half of Americans accepted that Mr. Obama was a Christian. Meanwhile, 13% of registered voters thought that he was a Muslim, while 16% were not sure about his religion."
The actual report from the highly-respected Pew Research: "When asked to identify Obama's religion, a small but consistent minority of voters say that Obama is a Muslim. Currently, 13% assert incorrectly that Obama is a Muslim, which is virtually unchanged from June; in March, 10% said that Obama was a Muslim."
13% morphs magically into 33%. As long as it fits the narrative, people don't give a shit about the truth.
Quick, go to the nearest Eagles club (or Moose, or Elks, or whatever.) 75% of those surveyed believe Obama is Muslim. Well, we only asked Jim, Bob, Bill, and Fred. Oh, and John, Bill, and Fred haven't voted for years (they're still rankled over Nixon.) ;)
Why are we still having this conversation?
...
...
For a couple of reasons.
Some people still believe he's a Muslim. (Idiots, in my book)
Some people don't know but trust people who say it. (Clue-challenged, short attention spanned lemmings, in my book)
Some people know he's not but benefit in some way from having this as part of the conversation. (Varies--cynics, shit stirrers, opponents, headline "news" producers, etc)
That we're having this conversation **at all** is a sad waste of time and energy. I don't like playing with feces, flinging it or cleaning it up. But I do what I feel I must do to make the places I inhabit better. In this case, I propel this shit story one more post in an effort to refute it, to dry it up, to wither it with the shining light of truth (OBAMA IS A CHRISTIAN, NOT A MUSLIM).
Those others who keep it alive for the offensive purpose of political opposition are wetting their pants with glee that we're here arguing about the fucking percentages of idiots who parrot this thinly disguised intolerance. "One-third", "No, 13%", "Down from 16%", etc etc etc. :retch: With each answering call carrying the screaming headline Obama is a Muslim. FFS.
Michelle Obama racist image sparks Google apology
???????????????????WHY???????????????????
Google has apologised over a racially offensive picture of Michelle Obama that appeared when users searched for images of the US first lady.
The image came top of the Google Images results for "Michelle Obama".
Google placed a notice over the picture titled "Offensive Search Results", saying: "Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree."
Later on Wednesday the image dropped from top image results, though the BBC understands Google did not remove it.
Instead, the image appeared to have been removed from the site that originally published it, and was therefore no longer appearing prominently in Google searches.
The White House has declined to comment.
Users who click on the advertisement above the image were directed to a statement from Google, which explained that its results "can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries".
I finally found it, but it keeps disappearing form the results.
At the moment its
here
I'm not gonna post it on the cellar.
I'm not gonna post it on the cellar.
You just did. :eyebrow:
I meant attach the image. What I did was provide a link to it instead. That way the reader has the choice to view it or not.
Do you know what site that was on?
It's definitely racist - and therefore disgusting IMO.
But my 4 years here have made me far more supportive of the idea of free speech. See, it might be a trickle down effect, but you are slowly turning me. If I can see Two Girls One Cup online, I can cope with a racist picture and make my own mind up about it.
I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't published it. With a condemnation of course.
"The Daily Mail; racist in public so you don't have to be." Frankie Boyle.
http://yesbuthowever.com
An international frenzy was unleashed when a Hot Girls blog originating in China published a photoshopped Michelle Obama portrayed as an ape. As of today, the photo is down, not because Google blocked it from the search index, but because the webmaster of the site removed it. The site now shows innocuous news photos of the First Lady, and also features an ad for the new Sarah Palin book.
Chinese Republicans? :haha: Just kidding, I'm sure there's plenty of Republicans that would find that picture disgusting... except Emma.
'Free speech' is fine. But Google have a right to apologise as well. They didn't block the site, they just posted warnings. I think they did the right thing. It sends a message that such racist material is not ok, is not acceptable. They have as much right to express that sentiment as the original site had to show the pic.
I don't see any conflict with free speech in what happened here. People have a right to express themselves, but that doesn't mean they don't have to then deal with whatever offence or hurt they have caused in so doing. I am glad this picture caused such a storm. I would find it thoroughly depressing if the only thing that caused an outcry was a gay kiss on tv, or some diva showing a nipple.
![here]("http://yesbuthowever.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/michelle-obama-287x300.jpg"){kind=link}