comment #1

D.Z. says ...

Fortunately, red-staters don't read "The New Yorker", while blue-staters are more likely to buy Maxim than political journalism mags.

comment #2

LexG says ...

[Deleted because a thoughtless and stupidly contrarian tone of nihilism throughout. And because it was too long and had too many CAPITALIZED words. Irritating as shit, pissed me off, so I eighty-sixed it.]

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Lex: I'll take boring over dangerous. And I think the fact that nothing will change is precisely why someone like Jeff would want Obama to win, seeing as nuclear war and/or global warming are around the corner at the moment.

comment #4

vansmith says ...

that cover was brutal, but its indicative of the larger issue. the media is reaping huge cash for promoting obama, ratings and mag sales are up when he's on, its like their riding him all the way up and if he gets in, they'll ride him all the way down. people care because its still a highly unlikely thing to occur in the US. people's hands will be covering their open mouths if this guy is actually sworn in. it was the media that decided the clintons were out, bill is still bitter about that..

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

I laughed and shrugged it off, until after dinner, when I called THE NEW YORKER and cancelled my subscription.

comment #6

nola says ...

Lex, you're kidding about the do not vote line right?

I have no patience for people who complain about our country and yet do not vote. It's supposed to be a democracy. Our voter turnout is a joke compared to other first world countries and even more of a joke when you see the turnout in places where voting can get you killed.

comment #7

fielding says ...

By the way, Wells, where's your breathless report on the last couple of national polls that have the 2 candidates tied, or the news that money is now pouring into the McCain coffers at such a rate that he'll have about the same amount as Obama come November?

comment #8

Entropy says ...

Obama should have laughed it off. It's out there whether he likes it or not and to say he was "offended" made him look weak and thin skinned.

Love him or hate him, Dubya never comments on the things said about him which are ten times worse than this cover and it helps suit his image as someone who is above it all. I mean if Obama can't take this cover...how the hell can he handle criticism on the world stage? It's not always gonna be emails from Scarlett Johanson.

Whether you see the satire in it or not is irrelevant. Obama acting pissy was a bad tactical move on his part. And yes, I find those all tied up polls interesting but not at all surprising. It will be a close election.

comment #9

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Fielding: If polls mattered at this point in the cycle, then Dukakis would have prevailed in a landslide.

comment #10

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Jesus H. Christ.

You know things have become topsy-turvy around here when DZ (our new knight in shining armor?) has to correct the inane blather one one LexG.

RECOGNIZE.

"Love him or hate him, Dubya never comments on the things said about him"

That's because he's never been actively involved in any intellectually stimulating conversations on anything, anywhere. Okay, maybe once or twice. Perhaps he had a Zen moment in college ("Dude, it's like fool me once, won'tgetfooledagain...life is kinda like the album 'Who's Next'"), but that was likely the booze & coke speaking. Other than that, he's a puppet, and I've never seen him express one single interesting thought of his own. And that's sad. But probably more funny than sad. Your pithy comment is akin to saying, "Love him or hate him, but Hitler really knew how to rock a 'stache!"

Erm, RECOGNIZE?

comment #11

Mgmax says ...

I love how the magazine of snooty coastal sophisticates does something offensive, and it's somehow proof that people in Iowa screw everything up. Huh?

Fortunately, red-staters don't read "The New Yorker", while blue-staters are more likely to buy Maxim than political journalism mags.

Read the next one, definitely! At least as long as it takes to read my blurb on Khan BBQ!

comment #12

GKLondon says ...

The main thing this magazine cover does is give the Obama camp a perfect issue to rally round and yet again state that he is Christian, never read the Qur'an nor swear in on it etc. I think the image will get people on both sides to actually tune in to what is being said about it, and the fact that it is The New Yorker means that Obama's rebuttal won't be seen as simple, adversarial talk aimed at the right.

Maybe it'll get through to that 12 percent. maybe it won't.

comment #13

SaveFarris says ...

"Your life will be EXACTLY the same. Especially one Jeff Wells, borderline-elderly man."

That's not entirely true. We know, for example, he'll be paying more in taxes!

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

As Bill Maher said: If you can't do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?

comment #15

Scott Mendelson says ...

That's one thing we do agree on Entropy (or whatever your actual name is). Obama could have said something to the effect of "I might not like it, but I get the joke and I'm sure the intended audience will too." Just as candidates think they can win points by feigning outrage, they could also win points by standing up for like-minded folks who get into hot water at their expense.

Hillary Clinton could have won lots of brownie points by defending or at least quasi-defending former Air America host Randi Rhodes early this year (forced to switch to Nova Radio for cursing out Hillary Clinton in a stand-up comedy routine). And she certainly didn't have to circulate the narrative that she wanted David Souter fired for his 'pimping Chelsea' comment (it was a dumb thing to say, but that's what happens when you force straight journalists to play pundit). "He said something mean and dumb, but he's apologized to me. I think he probably deserves some form of punishment, but it shouldn't cost him his job." And I've lost count of the times that the Dems have thrown MoveOn.org under a bus, even when MoveOn was right on a certain issue.

As for the New Yorker cover, t's called satire. Just because The New Yorker thinks you're smart enough to get it without labels and thought balloons doesn't mean you have to prove them wrong (yes, Obama, this means you too). Maybe Limbaugh is right. Maybe the outrage over Bush and Co. has killed the sense of humor of most liberals. It's called satire and it's a pretty sharp parody at that. Going crazy because you think that someone else isn't going to get it is the epitome of stupidity, and the founding block of censorship. If you don't think it's funny, so be it. But don't be so stupid to think that The New Yorker is suddenly pulling for McCain. And certainly don't be one of those people who is terrified that someone else isn't going to get the joke. Liberals need to learn to laugh at ourselves again, otherwise the right-wingers really do win.

comment #16

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Is it possible to support the New Yorker's decision to run that cover AND Obama's decision to address it? Cuz I think that's where I fall. They are both essentially doing their jobs.

Maybe Obama doesn't need to be so sensitive, sure, but it's still early so this is a good lesson for him. He's no longer the "alternative," but the "contender" (if not the favorite), and I have a feeling the media will start treating him as such (and this includes being poked, prodded, and parodied across various mediums). The honeymoon is over, basically. He's got a lot of work ahead of him.

I thought the satirical cover was pretty funny, actually. Then again, I'm usually considered somewhat twisted in that sense.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Scott: Parody and satire generally imply making fun of facts.

comment #18

DarthCorleone says ...

D.Z. >> As I said in the thread yesterday, your criterion for "satire" is faulty.

sat·ire /ˈsætaɪər/
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

If you must have a "fact" that this satire is mocking, it's the fact that so much of the voting public has this incorrect perception of Obama and that the media has latched onto it as a story worthy of beating to death.

Scott is one hundred percent correct in his assessment of the cover. Whether or not you think the New Yorker cover is effective, grousing about it caters to a world in which we don't have open dialogue and we're constantly silencing ourselves out of PC paranoia. I don't need that sort of dumbing-down, and it's not my responsibility to explain everything to everyone. I'd rather live in a society in which it's each individual's reponsibility to question and learn for him or herself than one in which we leave everyone to ignorance because it's the path of least resistance.

comment #19

Admiral82 says ...

Ones reaction to the cover is relative to ones admiration for the candidate.

The cover is shameless and over-the-top. I love satire, but a line was crossed...

comment #20

LexG says ...

Gruver1, censoring posts.

Exactly the spirit of liberal bonhommie that would make his beloved Obama proud.

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

Just returned from spending a few minutes at the All-Star parade on 6th Ave. (Hey, it's Don Sutton!) On the way over, encountered beggar wearing Obama shirt with CHANGE in big letters. Is this a great country, or what?

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Darth: "If you must have a "fact" that this satire is mocking, it's the fact that so much of the voting public has this incorrect perception of Obama and that the media has latched onto it as a story worthy of beating to death."

But that's not what the New Yorker is mocking.

"grousing about it caters to a world in which we don't have open dialogue and we're constantly silencing ourselves out of PC paranoia."

Ad Hominem attacks and race baiting =/= open dialogue.
Also, if you hate political correctness, then you should be for allowing people like Ward Churchill and the Dixie Chicks to have their say, too.

"I'd rather live in a society in which it's each individual's reponsibility to question and learn for him or herself than one in which we leave everyone to ignorance because it's the path of least resistance."

You don't seem to get that that cover is the very reflection of our ignorance.

LexG: "Gruver1, censoring posts. Exactly the spirit of liberal bonhommie that would make his beloved Obama proud."

And conservatives had no problems with theater chains banning Brokeback Mountain and Farenheit 9/11, or with AT&T censoring singers who speak out against Bush and the war...

comment #23

DarthCorleone says ...

D.Z.>>

Explain to me then, oh enlightened one, what it is that the New Yorker is mocking. If the mockery is simply a reflection of our ignorance, as you say, isn't that exactly equivalent to what I cite as an incorrect perception, which is one of the two items I claim they are skewering? So, yes, I "get" it.

Sorry - I fail to see how this is equivalent to ad hominem attacks or race-baiting. I'm not saying this is a genius piece of art, but calling it "wrong" equates to telling people back in the day that they shouldn't read Jonathan Swift because they might take his "Modest Proposal" literally and start eating babies to curb overpopulation.

For the record, I don't "hate" political correctness. I think it has its place in a polite society for the time being. But when the explanation is reasonable and can be uncovered with a little thought - which in this case I find it to be - I find it irksome.

And, yeah, I have no problem with Ward Churchill or The Dixie Chicks speaking their minds. What makes you think that I would? I might or might not agree with them, but that's irrelevant.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

"Explain to me then, oh enlightened one, what it is that the New Yorker is mocking. If the mockery is simply a reflection of our ignorance, as you say, isn't that exactly equivalent to what I cite as an incorrect perception, which is one of the two items I claim they are skewering?"

Not really, since they're clearly not mocking incorrect perception as much as endorsing it.

"Sorry - I fail to see how this is equivalent to ad hominem attacks or race-baiting. I'm not saying this is a genius piece of art, but calling it "wrong" equates to telling people back in the day that they shouldn't read Jonathan Swift because they might take his "Modest Proposal" literally and start eating babies to curb overpopulation."

Swift made a point while the New Yorker channeled Jim Crow.

comment #25

DarthCorleone says ...

Yeah, I fail to see endorsement. Endorsement is your faulty personal interpretation.

With your statement you say "that's not what the New Yorker is mocking," and then you completely reverse and say they aren't mocking but endorsing.

1) An uninformed idiot thinks that Obama is Muslim.
2) The view of uninformed idiots is sensationalized and exploited.
3) The New Yorker makes an observation illustrating these facts.

Where's the endorsement?

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Darth: No, I'm just extending my statement, not reversing it.
And the New Yorker is endorsing it, simply by not making fun of the uninformed idiots.

comment #27

saramie says ...

omg !
is it true? I think i like the news like this, and i always browse all kinds of news on a tall dating site ~~Tallmeet---c om, where many tall models, tall sportsmen and tall admirers seeking love.The best and largest dating place for tall models, tall players, tall men, tall beauties and tall admirers.
you can have a try.