So When's the White Satire Going Down?

[BronxBoy]

You know the upcoming New Yorker cover that shows McCain wearing a pair depends while he calls Cindy a C**t while slipping his hand under the dress of a demure telecommunications lobbyist as she pushes a telecomm bill in front of him. When is that coming out? Lot's of satirical material there!

You know the cover right? The same one that has Rush Limbaugh in his studio talking about how Obama is a Muslim while ass fucking a little boy and slipping a 100 bucks to the Hispanic cleaning lady to pay for his "package". The SATIRICAL impact of that will be sheer brilliance! I might even get some of my homies to buy this one! It will be so obvious, even THEY will understand it.

Boy I can't wait for THAT cover. Cindy McCain, after being called the "C" word, will be shown rolling her eyes at John, while trying to take off her jail issued ankle bracelet with a screwdriver fashioned from a Budweiser can. John McCain's former wives and the President of InDev will be looking through the window with an identical look of disgust! HOT DAMN!! The New Yorker will probably double their newsstand sales.

CAN'T YOU FEEL IT! The cover will be great. Karl Rove, as he boards a plane for parts unknown, will be flipping the bird to John Conyers. Nancy Pelosi would be french kissing Bush while Bush senior shoves monopoly money up her ass that has "SUCKER" written on it. THAT would be some FUCKING satirical shit. FUNNY AS HELL!

You know the cover right? The one that has Phil Gramm, laughing at a working man putting $7 into his gas tank, while getting blown by Ann Coulter. On his desk is a banking bill: "GIVE THEM WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT AS LONG AS MY ENVELOPE GETS SLIPPED UNDER THE DOOR" His signature is on it. That is going to be so fucking SATIRICAL and will really shine a light on who these bastards are. I can't wait to read it.

But you know what? We won't see it. No at all. The New Yorker is bold enough to publish this cover on the Obamas . Let's see them publish something equally insightful and inflammatory about the other side. And don't tell me about all the fine articles they have written. A lot of morons will look at that magazine cover on the newsstand and have that image seared into their consciousness and THEY WON'T BUY THE FUCKING MAGAZINE TO READ THE STORY.

And until they they do, all you motherfuckers riding the 'CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S SATIRE" horse, can ride that motherfucker out of town and kiss my SATIRICAL Black Ass!

[provis99]

1. and then the New Yorker would claim

they weren't satirizing these right wing clowns, they were just satirizing left-wing opinions about the right wing clowns. That's where the dumbasses at the New Yorker missed the idea of satire. They satirized Obama, and not the right wing portraying Obama this way, as they claimed they did.

[BronxBoy]

3. These Sons of Bitches...

get paid salaries that the families of sveral DUer's could live on and they can't see the problem with this? Blak man gets nominated for President and it's fair game to trot out every racial stereotype in the book. Republicans nominate the epitome of "SATIRICAL" And we have to be respectful.

[Clark2008]

76. Actually, most reporting staffs don't make a lot of money.

That's why there's so few good reporters these days.

I agree with your OP, however. I just wanted to point out that most employees of newspapers and magazines aren't rolling in dough.

:hi:

[redqueen]

105. "Intended" satire. That's how the most are referring to it.

"Intended".

Yep. Exactly.

Nice try, geniuses.

[lame54]

2. This is a National Review cover

[BronxBoy]

4. I thought it was the New Yorker.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. Great minds!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. The New Yorker should claim they were satirizing a National Review cover.

When you have to start bullshitting & sliding around in your own weasely explanatory drool, your satire has gone the way of the lead balloon.

[Bob Dobbs]

7. I'm with you, bro.

Don't want to be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America.

[lame54]

116. it's not mania it's media...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mjN32G1iI

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new media.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mindfuck America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Okay, that's enough to argue.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information nation of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

[eleny]

8. K&R with much thanks, BronxBoy

[mdmc]

9. that wouldn't be satire

Satire would be Bush unable to sleep due to his failures. Obsessed about staying out of the hauge. Fearful that a compassionate creator will dole out just desserts. Endless faxes on how McCain might be able to salvage the GOP after Bush has run it into the ground.

[BronxBoy]

10. Whatever..

I just want to take the "Take the Taxi to the White Side"

[mdmc]

11. my reply was a satire on bush

a true satire

[brindis_desala]

73. Now that's sophisticated humor. It seems the New Yorker has

given New York a parody of its name. But Tom Wolfe surely enjoyed it... but then he coined it.

[nxylas]

83. Here's my favorite Bush satire

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_bravely_leads_3rd_infantry

And if you don't get the joke, you must be a Freeper.

[Vanje]

87. That wouldnt be satire,....

That would be.....The News.

[TahitiNut]

12. Amen. That cartoon could just as easily adorn the cover of the Council of Conservative Citizens ...

... magazine, or the Ku Klux Klan magazine ... and how many DU elitists/sophisticates would be saying to chill out, it's only satire???

The effete sense of penthouse liberalism that deigns to ignore the sensitivities of a society in which the 'over the top' has become ORDINARY and spoofs have to be taken to heretofore unimaginable extremes just to be distinct from the nightmarish corruption infesting the 'halls' (sewers?) of our federal government indicates a detachment from the reality that too many face.

Pseudo-intellectualism without empathy and a far more in-the-trenches contact with ordinary people all over this country is a bankruptcy of intelligence.

Sure ... satire ... so would a depiction of Black Sambo and Aunt Jemima be a 'satire' of racism??? Riiiight.

The self-inflated arrogance of some folks continues to bemuse me - seemingly immune to any feedback, too.

[BronxBoy]

14. And I would be OK with this...

IF they pushed the same hot button issues with McCain. But they won't.

Cindy McCain getso little coverage that you wouldn't even know that fucking McCain was fucking married!

Unfucking believable.

[RavensChick]

112. Nah, 'cause Mayor McCheese

is hooked up with Cruella deVille, bro! No one I've seen in the M$M (except for Keith) would dare mention it that way. KO would come out blazin' snark and all!!

Besides, if any newpaper or magazine in the DC area had such a horrible picture on the front cover on a Sunday morning, dear God! Heads would roll faster than a Vera Wang dress flying off on prom night! Your comments are right on the money because it goes to show that some people can't tell satire from blatant racism at its worst! And that cover is the most horrible thing I've ever seen!

K & R!!!!!

[glitch]

18. Well said.

I know it's not politically correct to mention this but I keep thinking of how all those awful cartoon caricatures of Jews in 30s Germany must have been cleverly satirizing the Nazis.

[TahitiNut]

39. That's actually a fairly apt parallel, imho.

Some find humor in stupidity (e.g. "The Jerk") but when abject ignorance is steeped in hatred and racism and religious intolerance (where "Muslim" becomes an epithet like "Jew" was an epithet in Nazi-era Europe) then the depiction of the BELIEFS of such bigots is anything but funny, wry, or satirical. The cartoon actually reinforces the bigoted belief that Muslim attire is the moral/sociological equivalent of burning the flag, lauding Osama bin Laden, and being a Black Nationalist.

[glitch]

54. Thank you. I wondered if it was "over-the-top" but those images were my first reaction.

First reactions are usually the correct ones, I find.

[Lifelong Protester]

58. I sure have to agree with you there

I was wondering when someone was going to raise the issue of Muslim attire being associated with flag burning, lauding Osama, etc. The mag has now made being a Muslim satirical? Certainly a negative depiction.
And I am sure I am not the only one who was highly offended at the way they dragged up the 70s blaxploitation film get-up for Michelle.
The whole thing makes me crazy.

[helderheid]

111. Spot on.

[Duncan Grant]

156. There's no comparison between this cover and pre-war German antisemitism.

I'll assume the caricatures you mention from "the 30s" are after 1933. In which case, the Nazis wouldn't be satirizing themselves.

The historic cultural role of German Jews and the contemporary campaign of Barack Obama have far more differences than similarities (if any ever existed in the first place). While it's interesting to consider this idea -- it is categorically wrong to see an equation between this cover and 1930s Nazi Germany.

If you're truly interested in pre-war antisemitism you might want to read Richard J. Evans book, The Coming of the Third Reich.

edit: added Barack Obama

[glitch]

178. You are simply stating an assumption, some absolutes and a reference to a book.

Is that really how you want to present your point? Why not just say in my opinion?

Thanks for the book reference though, always appreciated.

[Duncan Grant]

182. If you can link pre-war antisemitic propaganda to The New Yorker cover of Obama, I love to read it.

:banghead:

[glitch]

185. I was honestly stating my opinion. Not stating my opinion as facts, as you did

And adding a reference to a book to bolster your opinion won't make it more valid.
Why not simply offer some reasons to bolster your opinion if you want to influence mine? And not try to pass those reasons off as facts?

Keep on banging, it might work.

edit for clarity

[PerpetuallyDazed]

68. I thought it was funny... so I must be an elitist?

I thought "Borat" was funny, too... am I a bigot as well? I've NEVER consider myself to be either, but it seems as if DU would have me believe otherwise these days. I still feel as though context is being completely ignored in this matter and a bending over for the Low Information Voters is occurring.

I think there is also something to be said for taking back the power from the REAL racists and bigots and redefining the message. "Harold and Kumar Escape From Gitmo" was excellent at depicting some of the absurdities and parallels behind the war on terror and racism, for example. I still think the majority of people who pick this mag up will find it more funnier than offensive and once again DU is living in it's own little bubble.

[Nye Bevan]

77. How DARE you think it was funny

You ARE an elitist.

And how DARE you find Borat amusing. He is an anti-semite, singing songs about throwing Jews down the well.

Now that nice man Jay Leno on the other hand- he is a REAL comedian.

[AlbertCat]

161. Yeah!

And those Eddie Murphy movies where he plays big fat mama-jammas are HILARIOUS!


(That was satire BTW)

[KSinTX]

121. I don't question your right to find the cover funny

and I don't think you're a bigot for finding it so. I may believe people who find it humorous might not be as sophisticated as they think, but that's my personally held opinion. Just don't question that I might find it offensive and racist in my own elitist way.

I'm unaware of the full context of Borat's movies and you're welcome to enjoy them. One day, if I bother to watch one, we might disagree on their message; then again, we might not.

[entanglement]

213. The fallacy in that argument is that New Yorker types can't be 'real racists'

Perhaps that judgment is best made by the targets of racism (i.e. Black people in this case)?

[redqueen]

107. I wish we could rate posts.

:thumbsup:

[sakura]

109. Well said, TahitiNut

There's definitely self-inflated arrogance there, but also insecurity about their own intellectual prowess. They claim they "get it," therefore everyone else must be idiots. Secure people don't say things like that. They recognize that people have different viewpoints and that new evidence or ideas may change their own opinions.

There's a definite lack of critical thinking skills evidenced here-- the defenders of this cover seem to be unable to do what you suggested-- extrapolate to a new situation to determine whether or not their original premise is faulty.

The truth is, it's a lot easier to be a cynical, superior asshole than it is to think with an open mind. The scary thing is that these characteristics typically describe the far-right wing.

edited for spelling

[TahitiNut]

117. Agreed.

I'm somewhat bemused that there's so little self-examination and contemplation. For example, the overwhelming emphasis on "it's The New Yorker!" exists in virtually every defense of that piece of tripe. This exaggerated focus on the almost totemic regard for the magazine itself as some holy-of-holies is a keystone in not only the interpretation of the cartoonist's induced intention but in a slavishly obsequious regard for some alleged inerrant intellectualism. It's a cult-like subordination to the 'zine as though it's some touchstone for the validity of their posture. These self-proclaimed intellects then, with almost missionary zeal, sprinkle DU with the holy water of their oh-so-special insight ... completely without any apparent realization of how appallingly redundant and repetitious they are, as well as superficial and simplistic. It's almost laughable - like 8-year-olds playing in some backyard 'let's pretend' costume play.

The cartoon is, quite simply, a regurgitation of racist imagery. Any proclamation that it's some transcendently erudite satire, even though one might immediately infer in an abundance of generosity that it was so-intended, is sophomoric at the very best.

[glitch]

119. OMG I think I love you

:loveya:

edit: did I share too much?

PS check out the exquisite irony in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6503848

[sakura]

123. Emporer's New Clothes?

On another thread I saw words to the effect of, "If it's the New Yorker, it must be good, because they've won awards like the Pulitzer Prize."

A story in my city's alternative weekly won the Pulitzer Prize. It was a damn good story. But that doesn't elevate the semi-pornographic ads in the back of the newspaper to Pulitzer level. They're still crap, as is much of the editorial content.

The inverse is true of the New Yorker. Much of what is written in it is good. But a significant portion of it is self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory garbage.

The problem, I think, is intellectual laziness. People are unwilling to think critically. It's much easier to assume everything in the magazine is praiseworthy, rather than take the time and effort to come up with a well-reasoned opinion about its contents.

[TahitiNut]

135. I think that may be an apt metaphor.

I tend to agree regarding The New Yorker, but that's the result of over 40 years of experience reading it and many other publications and observing the behavior of folks in a wide array of circumstances.

I've certainly had my own experience with personal insecurities. I've both been there and done that in terms of pedantic, over-controlling, condescending, and arrogant behaviors, varying the mix as I ran from pillar-to-post with some misgivings regarding my own self-worth. Over the years, I've also observed the totemic publications carried (or conspicuously displayed) by folks who apparently felt such accessories to their visible style were helpful in creating impressions that presented something other than what they might have feared was more accurate - and embarrassing? Whether it's the Wall Street Journal prominently displayed in an outside pocket of an overcoat, Architectural Digest conspicuously displayed on a coffee table, The New Yorker clearly visible in the outside pocket of an L.L.Bean tote, or Rolling Stone in the bottom of a guitar case, there are an array of publications which have, over time, acquired some cachet that people treat them like amulets, conferring upon them something that they themselves migh fear unobtainable otherwise. It's an interesting cultural 'dance' that varies in its beat and rhythm but seems oddly similar no matter who's doing it.

We're a culture that's seemingly obsessed with bumper stickers, fashion logos, baseball cap emblems, and branded accessories which we diligently display to proclaim our 'tribal membership' (either actual or pretend). We seem to live in fear about what some unnamed and anonymous stranger might actually think about us ... and spend less effort in actually engaging in the self-examination and contemplation afforded by whatever experiences we might harvest for that purpose.

Thus, we've become messenger-obsessed and message-impoverished, seemingly incapable of distinguishing gossip from conversation, rumor from information, and style from substance.

Heaven forbid that anyone piss on our tribal totem! (... or team logo.)

[sakura]

137. You've described it so well! Thanks for your eloquence.

People are very willing to pigeonhole themselves. Get the right accessories and that will convey to others that you are a certain type of person. And as you've pointed out, a problem arises when someone pisses on that tribal totem, because you've tied your identity tightly to this logo/sticker/emblem. In effect, they are pissing on you.

It's unfortunate that people are so insecure that they feel the need to pigeonhole themselves. It's true that not doing so might cause others to think about who you really are, but by the same token, not pigeonholing yourself requires you to do some deep thinking about who you really are. It's much easier to pick up the identity associated with the amulets you described. Then the judgments people make about you are a step removed-- they are judgments of the group you belong to, rather than one that calls into question decisions you have thought long and hard about. And it's much easier to be righteously angry (or righteously derisive) when a group of people who proclaim to think the exact same way are standing at your side.

[TahitiNut]

152. Yup. We're truly on the same page.

I also think it's interesting that people don't seem to understand this unless and until we do it - engage in (unflinchingly) honest self-examination, exploring the nooks and crannies of our own inner fears and insecurities. Folks that haven't done it just don't seem to understand. I tend to think of myself as a "recovering addict" - recovering from approval addiction, addiction to self-righteousness, and addiction to the illusion of CONTROL. ("Control Freaks Anonymous": meet here.)

"You've given your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" :evilgrin:

(That's a 'reminder' I got once ... a 'wake-up call.')

[sakura]

192. Who said this to you?

The quote sounds like something my old boss might say. He set me on the path of Zen. I can't describe myself as a full-fledged buddhist, because as a recovering Catholic, the rituals, the community and label aspects of it scare me. The ultimate message is what you are describing, however.

Like you, I've spent a huge portion of my life in the situation you describe-- afraid of others' judgment, needing approval, needing to be right. When my son was born, and it came time to stand up to others on his behalf, I finally realized I could stand up for myself as well. I no longer give a damn what others think of me-- I do what I believe to be right and let the chips fall where they may. Or at least, I try to! It's gotten me into some trouble (at work, etc., it seems to be easier to let things fester), but ultimately (even workwise) I am in a better place because of it.

[TahitiNut]

202. I got that from some folks in "The Emerald City" about an hour's drive south of you.

I couldn't begin to list the maxims and quotations that've been pebbles strewn on the path of my life over the last 60+ years, many of which were suggestive of a similar perspective. I even remember that Invictus made a great impression on me as a pre-teen. "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." Heady stuff. As a naturally-gifted (meaning: I didn't have to work at it) kid in subjects such as math, physics, mechanical drawing, and such, I spent a lot of time in my "left brain" in school. Having an insatiable curiosity for as long as I remember, I've dabbled/explored (with little formal guidance) religion and philosophy for almost forever ... from bull sessions with my Lutheran pastor in high school to the Jesuits during a year's sojourn at a Jesuit college, to Salesian brothers at the high school where I taught, to a curiosity regarding Buddhism tweaked by the demeanor of the Vietnamese and the monks who self-immolated, to weekend afternoons spent in solo 'retreats' on the grounds of a local monastery, to informal visits with Buddhist monks at the local temple in Silicon Valley, and so on and so forth.

I got finessed into taking one of those 'personal awareness' seminars which, if I'd known more about it, I'd probably have avoided it - if only based on the way they're portrayed in pop culture (like "Semi Tough"). Well, I decided to get whatever I could out of it, independent of anyone else's (imputed) objectives. It was one of the best things I've done for myself - up there with my first trip to Tahiti and learning to Scuba dive. (I took the time to take the more advanced seminars. Worth it to me.) It was an opportunity to rearrange and reframe my life's experiences with greater insight and appreciation. (It's probably something a lot of Viet Nam vets might wish they could do.) It was everything one might want from all the bull sessions and into-the-morning conversations around a coffee table sitting on a living room floor with a couple of good folks after a particularly good party - if you know what I mean.

So, I just read and think and read and think and throw away the superficial stuff and assimilate the stuf that resonates. When I'm not draining swamps and killing alligators, that is. It's fun - and totally without one-upsmanship or judgment or competition or show. And no grades. No "pass/fail." None of that.


I remember chatting with a friend/coworker about 15 years ago. At the conclusion of our chat, as he was heading to the parking lot to drive home, he asked me "What do you think you'll achieve by studying that stuff? Enlightenment?" It was a surprising question. All I could answer was "I don't know, but if it were possible and I didn't give it a chance, then I'd be missing an awful lot." That pretty much sums up my outlook - "you only go around once in life so don't miss anything." That's why I've bungee-jumped and para-sailed and scuba-dived and got trained in Transcendental Meditation (you know, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) and whitewater-rafted and surfed Hawaii and sailed in Tahiti and done a myriad of things. I just don't want to miss out. Greedy. Insatiably curious.


Oh... those folks in the Emerald city are at http://www.wings-seminars.com/
(It's a place to get a "full-body enema." :rofl: A helluva wake-up call.)


Namaste

[sakura]

210. Namaste to you, as well.

It sounds like you've lived more in your life so far than others might were they granted six or seven. I don't thinks that's greedy, though. Greed implies too much. You're just taking everything you should. Hope I can live up to that example.

[glitch]

163. Sometimes I miss the safety of a stereotype.

And amulets do make it easier for others to recognize who you think you are, or who you'd like to be. Groups, or herds, do provide a bit more safety in uncertain times. But,

"There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion." Ralph Waldo Emerson

:)

[TahitiNut]

164. Ohhh... I like that. Ol' Ralph Waldo nailed it, didn't he?

I don't recall ever reading that ... and, I must admit, not much Emerson since my long past school days. But that quotation is delicious. Nice catch!

[glitch]

171. Good, isn't it? I often shorten it to "imitation is suicide" when I need a quick, personal boost

It's been a fav of mine since school. Those words have contributed to the shape of my life, without a doubt.

[sakura]

193. You (and Emerson) are absolutely correct.

What a shame it would be to go through life as a one-dimensional stereotype.

[glitch]

194. I can only conclude it is the safety that attracts them. Why else?

The desire to fit in is ancient. It makes me sad that there is still so much fear driving behavior today.
I love periods where people break out of it a bit, but then they always get pounded back in line. Wack-a-mole. But I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of an especially egregious pounding period and are about to break out again. And I think that Republicans (not just Republicans) appearing so fearful of differences, and pounding so hard and so loudly against any diversity, point to it too.

Here's hoping.

[sakura]

198. I'm glad my son is going to experience this new period.

It was depressing coming of age in the cynical eighties, where image and who you knew were everything. I'm hoping things will be different for him. The mantra in our house is "Think for yourself!"

[glitch]

199. Excellent! When I was growing up it was "Question Authority" Good Luck sakura! nt

[scarletwoman]

174. Forgive me -- first, I totally agree with everything you've written in this thread -- but this post

in particular sent my poor sick mind skewing way sideways, and I just HAVE to post this:

I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy.
You see by my outfit that I'm a cowboy, too.
We see by our outfits that we are both cowboys.
If you get an outfit you can be a cowboy, too.

("Streets of Laredo", as sung by the Smothers Brothers)

:loveya:
sw

[TahitiNut]

184. (LOL!!)

Prezactly. :dunce:

:hug:

I remember watching when they did that on TV in their show ... and damned near choked laughing.

[scarletwoman]

186. I was watching their show when they did it, too. My family NEVER missed the Smothers Brothers Show!

I've remembered those lyrics my whole life, and they just sprung up full blown into my mind when I read your excellent post about external significators of tribal identity.

:yourock:
sw

[noiretextatique]

151. i agree with you, my friend

last week, my supervisor used the n word. a woman who works with us was being annoying and condescending to her, so she tells me: "i thought to myself, i'm not your n*&+$%#."
i don't know if she is a racist or not, and i don't care. but, she should have had the common sense not to use that word, and certainly not while talking to ME.
her intent was probably not to be racist, but she did utter a racist slur while talking to a black woman, at work. it was so inappropriate on so many levels.
i feel the same with the new yorker. some folks like to forget about context, especially about the context of race in america. i understand what they are trying to convey (at least i think i do) but i also believe it is racist.

[TahitiNut]

153. Thanks, m'luv.

:hug: :loveya:

You should KNOW how much I detest that word ... even the thought of it makes me want to steam-clean my brain.

When I really think about how incredibly MUCH we miss in seeing what's lovable and special in other human beings by becoming emotional porcupines and armadillos, I can get overwhelmed with grief. We walk through incredible riches and remain impoverished. Tragic. Beyond tragic.
:cry:

[noiretextatique]

154. you are a gem

:loveya: i hate that word too. i've had it yelled at my from passing cars, but i am not used to hearing in the workplace. yes, it is all so sad sometimes ;(

[glitch]

118. I've thought about that a lot

"The scary thing is that these characteristics typically describe the far-right wing."

I think black-white thinking is a refuge in scary times, and no doubt about it these are scary times. But when someone who has decided white is the way to go realizes it's not they flip to black and vice versa. There are no other options for them.
David Horowitz is the best example of this in left-right terms. Shallow leftest flips to shallow rightest.
But I actually think it's worse than black-white = left-right. I think it's being reduced to whatever makes you feel safest, wins, and anything that might intrude on that gets shouted down.

And a lot of people find safety in their own opinion, even on something like a magazine cover.

What is new to me is that it is possible to be a black-white moderate.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

205. The problem with your logic is.....

....there are an equal amount of people on the "anti-satire" side who are simply willing to dismiss those who say they see it as satire, as essentially arrogant, elitist and at the end of the day, racist.

This cartoon is like a Rorschach test. People see what they want to see. I got angry at first. Then I recognized the very real fact that this is the image the GOP will try to paint for the American people over the next several months. It's no different than when someone comes on here and says "The freepers will claim Obama flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11" or "McCain's new ad will say Obama had dinner with Saddam and Osama.". Are those people trying to plant a bad seed too via hyperbole? If someone said it on Free Republic, we'd be calling them assholes, but here we accept it's blowing off steam over the frustrations of the radical right hate machine. If the National Review made this cover I'd be pissed because I know they'd be serious about it. Again, as many have pointed out, print media doesn't come with :sarcasm: tags. Yet.

And believe me, I still don't like the cover. I want to win this election, not play clever mind games to take shots at the far right, who won't get it anyway. Kind of like how Archie Bunker was seen as a hero of the right, because they weren't "in on the joke". Because if people here can't step back for a second and take another look at what the cartoon is trying to say, I certainly can't expect the typical moderate Republican or Independent to take the time to simply wrap their mind around anything but the surface of it.

My hope is it is what someone said yesterday. Inoculation against what is yet to come. A far more dangerous and subtle virus, spread by the masters of it.

[glitch]

208. I think both sides defend their "tribal totems" but I don't agree it's equal in volume or intensity

If I had the time I'd do a count, weighted for intensity. Maybe someone else will.

It is interesting to see the emotion attached to the opinions, don't you think? Lots of name-calling on this particular disagreement.

[TahitiNut]

209. The arrogant presumption that those who, on net, regarded it as offensive ...

... didn't "get it" is the kind of condescending, ad hominem dismissal that goes hand-in-hand with the kind of patronizing, stay-in-your-place (and toe the party line) racism that's far more pervasive these days than lynch mobs.

I "got it." There was NEVER any point during which I was confused, lacking humor, or unable to inductively divine the intention. It's not rocket science. So did many others who voiced disapproval of such a lame, poorly-executed attempt at satire. (That some of the fans thought it WAS at some elevated intellectual height merely confirms their limited mental acumen and laughable pretensions.) To then insult folks who don't slavishly regard that magazine as delivered by a prophet of liberalism on stone tablets of erudition and then contort and spin their attitudes in compliance, is a betrayal of the very pretensions about which I posted.

Sophomoric. At best.

Just how many people with liberal values is it worth offending and insulting in order to make a satirical point that will be completely lost on those whose attitudes are indirectly portrayed???

Appallingly bad judgment ... but it SELLS.

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

141. You mean these guys;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3617413

How many times do I have to repeat myself; If you have to have extraneous knowledge in order to recognize satire, if the image contains no cues to tell the viewer it's satire, then it's not satire.

Oh, sure, I recognize that there's a 'target audience' for TNY, but the image itself is not satire outside of that audience.

If that same exact image were on a racists or RW site, DU would be going ballistic over it... including all these self-appointed 'intellectuals' who are assuring all of us proles that it's 'just a silly joke'.

[tabasco]

13. Bwaaahahahaha!!

I support this post.

[madokie]

15. I agree with you on this

I seen it for what it is too. and satire is not it

[BronxBoy]

16. Another Great White Satirical image

GW with his feet on his desk in the Oval office pointing at the haunting picture of the dead woman covered by a blanket in the the Superdome.


He's reading the New Yorker's Obama cover and laughing with Karl Rove saying " I'm glad them son of a bitches didn't satirize THAT!"

[Swamp Rat]

92. ahem!

;)

[RavensChick]

115. Amen!

Lovely, SwampRat! That's gonna be the legacy of this sorry ass administration! They don't care about no one but themselves!

[EFerrari]

17. Maybe you and your entire remote should bend an elbow

and go look up the hundreds of covers featuring white satire TNY has published.

Then, get back to me about that kiss. :)

[EFerrari]

20. Here, I'll front you the first one.

[BronxBoy]

22. What Remote?

Kiss my Black Ass!

Why couldn't they make their point with all the WHITE motherfuckers that spew this bullshit?

[EFerrari]

24. They did.

eta: I didn't say that very well.

That's exactly what they did. Why do you think people are so mad. lol

And if you look at the whole issue, that just gets more clear. Not more white, just more clear.

[BronxBoy]

25. Well....I ain't Seeing Shit

And if I did, what the fuck would be the point????

You do know that this story is being briadcasted all across Black radio (Yes there is such a thing!)

And it isn't only "freepers" who may not read the NYer, a hell of a lot of Black folk don't. But WE will see that cover.....

LOL

[EFerrari]

28. You need to go look again.

This is a big fat "fuck you" to the idiots that are spreading this crap.

Seriously, check it out. The New Yorker has just pantsed every bigot that ever whispered shit about Obama.

It's beautiful. Now everytime anyone says any of this shit, you can say, "Oh, yeah -- I saw the cartoon. It was hilarious."

[BronxBoy]

33. Who gives a fuck???

You wanna lecture me about the New Yorker???

Go right ahead. I just know that this image was being discussed on all of the Black talk radio I hear today. And the reaction was pretty much negative.

And you know what, as a demographic, WE DON'T READ THE FUCKING NEW YORKER!

But we damn sure well will see that image and say WTF?

[EFerrari]

35. Good. And on the same hand, you confuse Obama with Osama

so why the fuck should I care what you think?

Edit to add text -- so nothing is lost in the editing:

"What fucking buttons does that push?

Big fucking difference from Michelle Obama with an afro and Obama on the wall

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS PICTURE EVEN MEAN????

Oh I know. I gotta think about it. But the Obamas pictured as the image of a lot of white folk fears requires some introspective thought too.

Oh well...too much to think about...niot enough time.

No wonder the Republicans kick our ass in the battle of images.

LOL"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3618331&mesg_id=3618644

[BronxBoy]

36. You Don't....

Have a good night

[EFerrari]

40. When you can distinguish between Obama and Osama, get back to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Have you considered that maybe you SHOULD read the New Yorker

so you can know what the fuck you are talking about?

Or are you content being a low information voter like the other side prizes so much?

[progdonkey]

78. first of all... calm. the fuck. down.

You have no clue what the New Yorker is, so you have no clue what the context of the picture is, and context is everything when it comes to satire.

So, I guess the New Yorker's sin was really just overestimating the intelligence of the average American.

"I just know that this image was being discussed on all of the Black talk radio I hear today. And the reaction was pretty much negative."

Because the people you listen to on the radio are either idiots or are trying to whip their idiot listeners into a frenzy (or both). Don't insult black people by pretending that idiots on the radio and their listeners represent the community as a whole.

"But we damn sure well will see that image and say WTF?" Yes, because you're ignorant and don't care about learning about the context. You just want a reason to be pissed off. Just because it's over your head doesn't mean they were being racist.

You actually remind me of Kevin Hart's cameo appearance in "40-year-old Virgin":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSYmvrUi5tM

"You've been warned a'ight. Let's move forward amicably."

"Check this out. First of all, you're throwing too many big words at me. Now, because I don't understand them, I'm going to take them as disrespect."

[Bette Noir]

93. Oh-- so *intelligent* black people don't mind being stereotyped?

I don't know what's worse-- the cartoon, or the people who keep defending it.

[progdonkey]

103. Jesus Christ, it was *satirizing* those very stereotypes!

Does anything that's satirical really have to have a huge disclaimer saying "SATIRE! SATIRE! SATIRE!" for you people to get it?

This is exactly the reason, though, that the New Yorker was misguided in putting that picture on the cover: too many people are too stupid to get it.

Here's a quick cheat sheet for recognizing satire, since you guys obviously need it:

Stephen Colbert is not really a conservative, he's satirizing conservative positions.

Jonathan Swift wasn't actually advocating that the Irish eat their children to save on money for food, he was satirizing the attitude of the British economists who cared more for the numbers on their income sheets than for the people (the Irish) who were being affected and even starved to death.

The New Yorker wasn't actually calling Obama a black-militant-marrying, Osama-loving, flag-burning, terrorist Muslim, it was satirizing the idiot Right Wingers who believe those lies.

Unfortunately, some people are still too stupid to get that Colbert isn't a conservative, that Swift wasn't advocating infanticide, and the New Yorker wasn't smearing Obama. The New Yorker's mistake wasn't putting a "racist" cover on their magazine, but in thinking too highly of the intelligence (or lack thereof) of large swathes of the American electorate.

:banghead:

[Barrymores Ghost]

130. You seem to be ignoring (is it deliberate?) a key element...

...of what constitutes "satire": an allusion to the party that is being satirized.

The New Yorker completely misses its intended mark because the objects or targets of the satire -- those who believe in or perpetuate these lies and mis-characterizations of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama -- were not present in the piece.

Following so far?

Therefore, to those not hip to the official explanation of the intent of this cartoon (read: about 90% of America), it just becomes a caricature of the misplaced stereotypes and slander leveled at the Obamas, and NOT an indictment of those who smear them with this baseless innuendo.

Get it now?

[EFerrari]

169. Do you? "Here's your card."

That joke depends upon the audience uniting with the speaker against a third party. Just as this cover depends upon the artist and the audience understanding the joke to be right wing nutcases.

The artist didn't invent a form here. It's all over cable.

[Barrymores Ghost]

187. Barack Obama's campaign denounced it as "tasteless."

I guess Barack just isn't smart enough to "get it," either.

Your rationalizations and those of the artist, David Remnick are weak and pseudo-elitist on their face. They smell of a smug New Yorker mentality that you "get it" and anyone who doesn't is a humorless dolt. What magnificent arrogance.

Whether this has any effect on votes is yet to be determined, but TNY has certainly given the morans who believe in or the assholes who traffic in the crap they were trying (but failed) to "satirize" a perfect channel for spreading the lies to others -- who won't "get it" either.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

206. That Seinfeld episode about how people don't understand the cartoons in the New Yorker......

....because they never spell out what they are trying to say. Who would have thought it was all true?

Oh, wait......maybe I shouldn't bring up Seinfeld either....Michael Richards and all......

[bonito]

19. Ding! n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

21. Actually...

You know the upcoming New Yorker cover that shows McCain wearing a pair depends while he calls Cindy a C**t while slipping his hand under the dress of a demure telecommunications lobbyist as she pushes a telecomm bill in front of him. When is that coming out? Lot's of satirical material there!

Actually, that's a bit too close to reality to be considered satire.

[BronxBoy]

23. LOL

I guess you're right.

[dysfunctional press]

26. don't forget the prescription pad, syringe, and pill bottles falling out of cindy's purse...

that junkie c*nt.

[BronxBoy]

29. NOW THAT.........

would be fucking satirical.

And if the New Yorker were truly a cutting edge mag, they would take your image and add the image they published of Michell Obama with the following caption:

'BITCH. I don't care what beer you own! I can't be taking no pserscrptions for no drugs! I gotta revolution to get on!

THAT would be satirical.

[SOS]

94. Can we add...

McCain trying to jam a slice of white bread into the CD disk drive.
Cindy is dressed in a $10,000 St. John couture suit, but looks groggy from all the Percocet.
On the coffee table is a large box addressed to Cindy McCain from Amex marked "Your monthly statement enclosed".
On the wall is a portrait of Mussolini.
In the fireplace is a copy of the US Constitution.

Why would the McCain's (or anyone) find this tasteless or offensive?
It's not mocking John and Cindy McCain!
After a lengthy explanation, we will learn that it is actually a satire of the liberal view of the McCains.

[Duncan Grant]

27. Okay, how about this one?

There's a lot of context surrounding this cover, too.

If anyone wants to kiss my satirical gay ass -- send a PM.

[BronxBoy]

30. OOOH

What fucking buttons does that push?

Big fucking difference from Michelle Obama with an afro and Obama on the wall

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS PICTURE EVEN MEAN????

Oh I know. I gotta think about it. But the Obamas pictured as the image of a lot of white folk fears requires some introspective thought too.

Oh well...too much to think about...niot enough time.

No wonder the Republicans kick our ass in the battle of images.

LOL

[EFerrari]

31. That's Osama on the wall, isn't it?

[Duncan Grant]

37. Umm, that's "OSAMA" on the wall not Obama.

It's official: you're incoherent.

See you tomorrow.

[Divine Discontent]

155. Chris Matthews did the same thing on the air a few weeks ago

and I defended his slip, on this site. Then a week later, I typed an "S" instead of a "B" and did the same thing and was very politely corrected of my faux paus.

When you are either, tired, type fast, or upset, you might slip those two up, because they are so unique, and so similar, it's bound to happen. As Obama himself has said, it's unfortunate that his name sounds so similar to a terrorist's, and worse yet, THE terrorist that everyone knows.

Many More At --- www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Laelth]

56. The Obamas have been accused of treason.

It doesn't get any worse than that. That picture of Bush and Cheney makes no accusation of any crime as far as I can tell.

-Laelth

[Duncan Grant]

57. Treason? Do you believe The New Yorker has accused them of treason?

The cover I posted is called "Watch Your Back Mountain" by Mark Ulriksen. This cover came out shortly after Cheney shot Harry Whittington on February 11, 2006.

The Oscar-nominated movie Brokeback Mountain had been on the cultural radar for weeks; this cover is a parody of its movie poster. At this time (February 2006), nearly everyone was satirizing Brokeback Mountain and it was not a coincidence that the Academy Awards were presented the week this cover was released. The New Yorker was later honored for this cover by the American Society of Magazine Editors (ASME) as "Best News Cover".

Did any Democrat (not to mention Republican) believe for a moment that Bush and Cheney had anything in common with the characters of Brokeback Mountain? They certainly aren't gay lovers. So, why did the magazine "spoof" Dick Cheney by placing him and Bush in a parody of the Brokeback Mountain movie poster?

Now, back to the Obama cover. You seem to believe that The New Yorker is making an accusation of a crime -- not just any crime but treason. I don't see it. I'm very concerned as to why you do.

[Laelth]

59. I'll try to clarify.

I don't believe for a second that The New Yorker intentionally accused Obama of treason. But that picture does. I believe that the picture's intent was satirical. I believe The New Yorker intended to show that the RW noise machine regularly paints Obama and Democrats, generally, as traitors. Nevertheless, I am concerned because we Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors that we fail to respond appropriately when the accusation is made. We should be angry and insulted. We should respond forcefully, and not make John Kerry's mistake (refusing to respond). Silence can be (and often is) interpreted as an admission.

Here's how the Constitution defines treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The picture in question depicts the Obamas as enemies of the state. It depicts them as traitors. The subtle point that The New Yorker was trying to make is not apparent from the picture, itself. I feel it is unwise to dismiss an accusation of this magnitude.

For what that's worth ...

Thanks for the question.

-Laelth

[Duncan Grant]

61. That was worth a lot.

As Kerry was "swiftboated", so too, are the Obamas - correct? That helps me understand your point of view - thanks.

I'm a little confused that you see the satire but interpret the picture as carrying some other subtle point about them being traitors. The only accusation I see is about the absurd right-wing rumor mill.

I do appreciate your kind reply. It was helpful. :)

[beac]

85. Here's the difference:

"Did any Democrat (not to mention Republican) believe for a moment that Bush and Cheney had anything in common with the characters of Brokeback Mountain? They certainly aren't gay lovers."


No, they didn't. And there weren't any rumors or emails going around stating that Bush and Cheney were gay cowboys. And it was clearly Bush & Cheney being satirized, NOT "perceptions" of Bush and Cheney.

I think the cover fails because you can't satirize "perceptions" or "fears" by simply bunching all the misconceptions together in a picture.

[Barrymores Ghost]

88. THANK you. That is precisely what I was trying to say...

...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6500892

But you did it far better, in a fraction of the time.

The picture also fails because it rekindles those perceptions and fears and misconceptions in those predisposed to believe or even have some doubt about them.

[Duncan Grant]

160. I don't think people will see the cover and take it at face value.

I simply can't imagine any scenario where someone will see a satirical cover of The New Yorker and take it literally. Whether it be Bush/Cheney in "Watch Your Back Mountain" or Obama as a muslim terrorist. :shrug:

[Nay]

165. That's it exactly, beac. The "satire" of the Obamas shows them doing

or thinking all sorts of things they HAVEN'T done or thought. All the possible satires suggested for Pub covers, like the McCains one -- him old in a wheelchair, her shrieking with pills falling out of her purse -- these are all TRUE things. McCain IS old. Cindy WAS an addict. Let's do a Rush Limbaugh cover -- him with a boil, eating Oxycontin handed to him by the maid -- these things are TRUE. They are exaggerations, not satire. the Obama cover wasn't comparable because it does not contain exaqgerations -- it portrays LIES.

Now, for the Obama cover to be satirical, it seems to me that, as said above somewhere, the people being satirized MUST be in there somewhere! It would have been easy -- have some redneck guy listening to Rush on the radio, and have that very same Obama cover in a thought balloon above the redneck's head. It's that easy.

I agree the cover failed as it is. I also think that it would make a good cover for the next issue of the KKK mag, or the Heil Hitler Monthly, because with all the blast faxes sending lies about the Obamas all over the world, the visual appeal of the lies plays right into the hands of just those people blasting those faxes and emails.

The reason the New Yorker can't do an equivalent cover with white Pubs is because Dems don't spread complete fabrications about Pubs. I suppose we could totally make up stuff -- let's have a cover of Bush, say, killing two children with his bare hands, while sodomizing one of them -- and say ha, ha, that's what a lot of Dems think of you. Oh, and we have to spread lies for years before the cover appears, making the Pubs defend Bush again and again from the lies. THEN we might come close to an equivalent cover.

[Vinnie From Indy]

183. You are exactly right!

The difference is that the artist and editors completely left out ANY visual clues of any kind to the what is being satirized.

It is no different than if the New Yorke had a cover of a Christmas card that depicted an enormous Christmas Tree festooned with blinking, dangling, lynched African-American figurine ornaments claiming that the cartoon is merely a satirical take on the greeting card industry.

I will repeat again that I believe that TNY has the right to put whatever in the hell they want to put on their cover, but I have the right to call them boorish idiots that missed the mark terribly with this cartoon. IN short, they fucked up and now they are trying to use the "your not as smart as we are" defense. I call BS.

[harmonicon]

69. unless you count face-shooting as a crime....

[psychmommy]

32. i think i love you bronx boy

those issues will certainly be framed and hung around my home. because i usually enjoy satire. this obama cover, not so much. you're good, i see blogger in your future. let me know if you're blogging.

[Blarch]

34. I see the cover looking something like this...

but with McCains head on the figure.

[TahitiNut]

42. I see McCain in an A-4 about to bomb Iran ... and a sign on the ground that says "Tehran Hilton" ...

... with McCain's radio saying that his "reservation is confirmed" ... and a rocket hitting the wing of the plane ("Air Force One" written on the nose).

[Taverner]

38. Satire gone awry.

The artist was shooting for something that would show the media bias for BS.

It ended up being the poster child for such BS.

Fuck, its the progressive equivalent to the Cubs upset of Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS.

[BronxBoy]

43. Only on DU

Could you have someone tie in satire gone wild with a heart-breaking sporting event

:thumbsup:

[Taverner]

45. The comments from the "cartoonist" were VERY similar to Steve Bartman

Why do we like baseball? Because they are just like us. The movies - they're what we want to be. Baseball - that's what we are.

[BronxBoy]

48. Wheneve I hear Steve Bartman...

I immediately flash to Family Guy..

"Go Head Steve, Catch the Ball"

Whatever happened to that guy?

Present topic aside. EVERYBODY in Chitown, Black or White, had to hate hat guy.

[Taverner]

49. He was the angel of defeat being clutched from the jaws of victory

Kinda Mookie thing, but worse

[EFerrari]

44. That's "cartoonist", not "artist"

as in people who draw political satire.

You guys are 'way more scary than this cartoon.

[BronxBoy]

50. You Guys...

Oooh Scary!!!!!!!!!!!

[EFerrari]

51. It is -- scary as you asking for the white satire when there's

more than a hundred years' worth available and most of it on line.

When the left is this thick, you bet, that's scary.

[rebel with a cause]

120. talking about years of satire

perhaps you should take a look at the hundreds of years of cartoon images of Blacks/African Americans and compare it to the white satire you are screaming about. I think you will find a big difference in these two sets of images, just as you will find a big difference in the way the Obama satire is in comparison to the present other white political satire. I accept the New Yorker's explanation for this satire, but I still question the tastefulness of it. I also do not think it is appropriate for the cover. On an inside page, opposite an article concerning the false rumors being put out on Obama, then it would have been appropriate and satirically funny. Now it is just out there on its own, and it does not do well. It is left up to interpretation, and that interpretation is formed on the veiwer's point of view of the Obamas.

face it, satire is like other humor and it is not always acceptable as presented.

[EFerrari]

136. I'm not screaming and I helped edit a book of the images

you're referring to -- I am familiar with them. But for the OP to ask where the "white" satire is is ridiculous.

[Ilsa]

41. K&R. Too many voters are out there,

still believing that Obama is a muslim, attended a madrassa, and was sworn into the senate with his hand on a q'uran. That cover will only reinforce their idiotic beliefs.

[woolldog]

46. Michelle Bernard (black woman) of the IWF (conservative org)

said on Harball that the New Yorker might as well have depicted Barack Obama as Sambo and Michelle Obama as Aunt Jemima.

The New Yorker cover is racist and offensive. Period.

[EFerrari]

47. Bullshit.

Calliing out racism is not racism. Period.

[Zookeeper]

62. I think you're fighting a lost cause here.

My first visit back to DU in months and the level of hysteria hasn't changed much.

Glad to know someone else is familiar with the New Yorker: A magazine with good, in-depth writing and an intelligent (Liberal) bias. Plenty of us "regular" folks, who like to read, read it.

(Hi Beth! How are you? :hi: )

On edit: By "regular" I mean not fitting the "elitist, east coast, intellectual, snob" stereotype that I'm seeing floating around on these threads.

[EFerrari]

63. Hey, Zookeeper!

Haven't read you for a long time. It's good to see you. :hi:

[Barb in Atl]

79. I'm familiar with the New Yorker, too

Matter of fact, introduced to it here, at DU, referring to Sy Hersch's articles about Abu Ghraib. I like the New Yorker.

But seriously, does that mean that they couldn't have made a mistake here?

It all seems very hyperventive - either you "get it" and it's a perfectly okay satire, or you're reactionary and it's the worst thing ever.

There was a conversation up thread where Lealth, rightly in my opinion, compared this to the swiftboating of Kerry. 94114 SF read it, understood and came away with a differing viewpoint. S/he may not have changed their opinion, but they understood.

SFExPat, I usually enjoy your posts, but you seem really angry that anyone would be offended by the cover. Why is it so difficult to merely understand that someone could be offended and think the cover adds to baggage already affixed to the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Initially, I thought it was so over the top as to be amusing. But it didn't take too long to think about how badly this reflects on the OBAMAS, not the targets of the satire.

(edit to correct username spellings and such)

[EFerrari]

133. I'm not angry, really, and TNY doesn't need me to defend it.

If we all agreed here all the time, Skinner would have to shut down the board.

That a thread with this premise can get 69 votes is astonishing to me. This is probably the most out attack on right wing smears that's been made in the press -- and look how it is received.

No wonder the right wing gets its way all the time. Look what happens when the media stands up to them.

[Tyler Durden]

143. I'd have sent you a PM, but....

so many people just reacting with their guts. Nobody thinking.

That was a Love Letter to Obama, RIDICULING the stupid smears and those who did them. But what to we get here?

"Don't confuse me with reality...I KNOW what they meant."

So very sad.

You did good by the way.

[woolldog]

65. take it a step further.

don't be a lazy thinker.

[Catherine Vincent]

52. K&FR! (Kick and Fucking Recommended!)

What a righteous rant! :kick:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

53. And I can just picture Wolf Blitzer asking about the pro and con as to whether

McCain's diaper and his verbal assaults on his wife, calling her a "c---" is overly inflammatory or simply imaginative and throught provoking satire. "Is the diaper fair game?" he'll ask the right wing psychopath on his panel.

Actually, I can't picture Blitzer even coming within 20 miles of that kind of pro and con debate when it has to do with a Republican.

[Laelth]

55. I hear you, and I am angry too.

But I would like to point out that the covers you describe above are all less despicable than that 07-21-08 cover featuring the Obamas. That cover accuses them of treason, the most serious crime in the United States and the only crime defined in the Constitution. What the New Yorker has done is inexcusable, imho, and worse than publishing any of the crude images you describe above.

Obama can not remain silent about this. Silence can be, and often is, interpreted as admission. I hope he responds with strength and righteous indignation.

-Laelth

[dendrobium]

60. Bravo!

I am getting tired of the nice white people telling me not to be offended.

[rebel with a cause]

124. Tell them 'nice white people' to walk a mile in your shoes

and then come back and tell you how to feel. I am not going to lie, I am as white (actually I am ruddy) as they come but I understand what this means. I am offended by this, although I have tried to be open minded, because I believe it feeds the racist ideas that some people have. If anyone wants to fight me on this, I will tell them to come hang out in some of these mid-west small towns and listen to what people will say when they see this image.

[Raineyb]

195. Indeed

I'm also tired of those same people telling me that I'm an idiot for being offended because I didn't get the "joke."

It's satire so it's all right.

Yeah right.

Regards

[DrZeeLit]

64. Coffee spit-take! You just made my morning. Thank you for the laughs.

And yep.

[berni_mccoy]

66. DUZY!

[harmonicon]

67. what you described wouldn't be satire

it would be and illustration of fact. totally different.

[Wiley50]

70. Where are the "Knights Of White Satire"?

In "Protocol Harlem" or somewhere?


KNIGHTS OF WHITE SATIRE

BY PROTOCOL HARLEM


Knights of White Satire
Never teaching our friends
Cartoons unpublished
Never Bleaching the Zen

................................................

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. There's a slight difference here -

The New Yorker cover on Obama is a leftish intellectual take on the LIES about Obama.

Everything you listed is the truth.

Your outrage is totally unwarranted.

[Mad_Dem_X]

74. Fantastic post!

I, too, am waiting for some "satire" about the other side. But I won't hold my breath on that.

That New Yorker cover is disgusting and offensive.

[DeeDeeNY]

75. Let's say it's a few months before the 2004 election

and a publication puts on its cover a caricatured picture of * sitting reading My Pet Goat in a second grade class while there's an inset of planes crashing into the World Trade Center. Even that wouldn't be as bad as the New Yorker's cover because Bush really did do that.

[izzybeans]

80. That cover did satirize white people.

And it served its purpose, it stirred up a hornets nest.

It had all the white person boogey-men and women in one imagine.

[Sheets of Easter]

81. ........

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Dave From Canada]

82. Or you on the cover, pretending to know what satire is. Satire isn't black or white, or any colour.

[Pacifist Patriot]

113. Perhaps it isn't black or white, but it's certainly effective or failed.

I'd say this cover is a monsterous failure as satire goes.

[Nye Bevan]

84. Some very, very ingenious ideas there

You are obviously a master of the art of satire.

You should email these suggestions to the Onion. I am certain they will have some use for them. They may even offer you a permanent job on their staff.

[Psyop Samurai]

86. lol... Giddyup!...

Now that's my kind of rant!

The limousine liberals laid an egg, and it brings into relief some underlying contradictions, including double standards as to what is fair game.

Both "sides" of the faux political divide share class interests and mutual allegiance. While there can be no genuine opposition without upsetting the apple cart, "our side" is reduced to satirizing the coded messages of their opponents while inadvertently perpetuating them.

Sad.

[madisongrace]

89. Great writing.......n/t

[mconvente]

90. Best. Rant. Ever. n/t

[Bette Noir]

91. Amen.

I'm sick of the media spreading this racist BS and then saying, "But it was a joke!"

Almost as sick as I am of the white pundits saying, "But I wasn't offended, because I got the joke."

[BronxBoy]

101. Yep

It's a double edged sword. Complain and you're hyper-sensitive. And by the way, "Did you know that you too fucking stupid to get the joke?"

The funny thing is I usually don't get too worked up over this sort of thing. I think our community spends too much time addressing these types of issues rather than focusing on the serious problems we can actually do something about.

But Jesus it's just been one thing after another.

I respect the New Yorker but I think they could have made the point they had to make in a much better way.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

95. can I share your post with others?

Thanks! :hi:

[Flying Dream Blues]

96. I know the New Yorker...used to live there and read the mag. I still know wrong when I see it, and

this cover is just wrong. If you need to read the article to see why you shouldn't be offended, why you shouldn't wonder what the real agenda is, it hasn't done its job as a graphic, now has it?

[marions ghost]

108. absolutely right ditto and bingo

"...if you have to read the article...it hasn't done it's job as a graphic..."

THAT IS the problem --it fails in what it purports to do and the New Yorker underestimated the reaction to it.

[Beaverhausen]

97. Thom Hartman is talking about this thread right now!

[Barrymores Ghost]

129. I heard it - and he and his callers made some very valid points...

...Thom and one caller nailed down the source of my disgust and anger with the cover simply by stating that:

The New Yorker completely misses its intended mark because the object or target of the satire -- those who believe in or perpetuate these lies and mis-characterizations of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama -- were not present in the piece. Therefore, it just becomes a caricature of the Obamas, and NOT an indictment of those who smear them with this baseless innuendo.

[Apollo11]

98. Witnesses saw and heard John McCain call his wife a c***

But there is no basis for believing that Obama is a Muslim, as far as I know.

[Cassandra]

99. Caricature is a good word for it...

as suggested by one of Thom's callers. You got a nice shout-out.

[wildeyed]

100. Great post BronxBoy.

I grew up reading The New Yorker and don't generally see myself as humor impaired or overly PC and I didn't think that cover was funny or appropriate either.

[BronxBoy]

102. Thank you

I wrote this after tending to my tomato plants most of the day. I guess I shouldn't have had those 2 vodkas when I came in the house.


I think my problem is less with the New Yorker and more with the fact that it seems that there is an attitude of anything goes when it comes to depicting Blacks yet there are boundaries when it comes to other folks.

While I do understand that the New Yorker is a liberal magazine, I think they made a mistake. They could have made their point in another way.

[wvbygod]

149. Other than the afro hairdo, what was the "black depiction"?

Were their some other depictions in the cover?

[wildeyed]

189. Most people won't get it.

They don't see that it is a dig at the wingers, they only see the lies and stereotypes and it reinforces what they were thinking anyway or might have heard.

Stop by the gardening forum sometime, tell us about your garden. I am interested in finding out where you grow tomatoes in the Bronx. :hi:

[redqueen]

104. Nice try.

Lets see if it sinks in for anyone who still insists that the cartoon was fine and dandy.

[slackmaster]

106. Nights In White Satire, Never Reaching The End...

Sorry, I can't help myself.

[helderheid]

110. You need to send them this post!

:applause:

[Pacifist Patriot]

114. No kidding!

Error: Recommended twice

[Z_I_Peevey]

122. Couldn't agree more, BronxBoy.

And what a way with imagery you have!

[Norrin Radd]

125. The only thing that was ever good about the New Yorker was the

comics by Charles Addams.

[Tarc]

126. This faux outrage is all quite amusing

In a sad sorta way.

[LanternWaste]

I think white satire began with...

I think white satire began with Voltaire and has been going strong ever since...


I imagine the Catholic Church told him (albeit in a quite different prose and with a changed word or two), "You motherfuckers riding the 'CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S SATIRE" horse, can ride that motherfucker out of town and kiss my SATIRICAL Catholic Ass!

[Richardo]

127. That *was* the white satire.

All over this country, people are talking about this cover. The McCain campaign has disclaimed it. Nearly every RW media outlet has been compelled to disclaim its accuracy, and debunk the very talking points they've used until now: Barack as Muslim, terrorist, traitor - they've all been rendered moot AND THE RW HAS HAD TO ADMIT IT.

For its part, the Obama campaign issued one statement yesterday, noting its tastelessness and offensiveness, and has moved on. Obama himself is spending the day laying out his plans to get out of Iraq. There's a guy with a sense of perspective.

And then there's the calm, tranquil, intellectual liberal sanctuary that is DU: two days (so far) of hysterical foamers wailing on and on with no end in sight. Reminder: There are two wars on, banks are failing, inflation is rearing its ugly head, civil liberties are under attack, and an election to be won.

I recommend you take a cue from our candidate - note your displeasure and move on.

[Zuiderelle]

128. That's some damn good satire of kneejerk overreacting DUers right there.

Oh wait, you're serious?

[Richardo]

131. ..

:D

[frylock]

132. why don't you kiss your meds?!

jesus tapdancing christ do we need an IQ test for registration on this site? the manufactured outrage has hit critical mass.

[LWolf]

134. I think you should turn this in to a LTTE and send it off to them. n/t

[janet118]

138. Using stereotypes in print cartoons is tricky business . . .

and so is satire. I know this first hand from working on a comic strip. You walk a very fine line. I think The New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama missed it by ~this~ much. The use of racist, anti-patriotic, and anti-Muslim images is over the top for a presidential candidate. It would be comparable to having a prestigious magazine cover feature GOP candidate John McCain being water boarded and giving up information to al Qaeda. The editor could explain all he wanted about how it was satire and the McCain-saving media and the GOP mob would still want his blood for making their war hero look like a collaborating weasel (there is, after all, that disturbing rumor out there in e-mail land somewhere).

The New Yorker cover without any explanation or context is confusing and damaging. It has taken on a life of its own and is now officially detached from the magazine article inside. The visual has won over the cable news crowd. The article - not so much.

Will the television media take the time to give the cartoon depth and context?

Of course . . . NOT!!!

[Barrymores Ghost]

140. Wish I could recommend this as a subthread.

Excellent points, excellent post -- the thoughtful quality of your writing is always a welcome relief.

[The Doctor.]

145. Or "Too clever by half" as they say. Very well put.

The point at which the image fails as satire is that it fails to identify the target.

In this case the target is unfounded fears of Obama as a terrorist. All the image does is portray those fears without any commentary on their validity or lack thereof.

There's nothing in the image that tells us that the image is about 'silly unfounded fears'. Therefore it comes across as a presentation of those fears without characterizing them.

How I might have done it would have been to put a 'typical' American couple in bed at the very bottom, covered by an American flag comforter with a picture of Bush on the wall, and then put the image of the Obamas as terrorists in a thought/dream bubble above where they slept. That at least would have depicted the image as imaginary.

[wildeyed]

190. Ah, good point. n/t

[crikkett]

139. well do you have a pen and paper?

make it yourself.

[G_j]

142. please send this to the New Yorker

please...!

[endarkenment]

144. Well said . Well said indeed. nt.

[Barrymores Ghost]

146. Needed ingredient for successful "satire": context and an allusion to the object of derision. k&r

The New Yorker completely misses its intended mark because any reference to the objects or targets of the satire -- ostensibly those who believe in or who traffic in these lies and mis-characterizations of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama -- were inexplicably missing from the piece.

Therefore, to those not hip to the satirical subtlety -- or savvy to the official explanation of the intent of this cartoon (read: about 90% of America) -- it just becomes a caricature of the misplaced stereotypes and slander leveled at the Obamas, and NOT an indictment of those who smear them with this baseless innuendo.

Many of us will be angered by those stereotypes being (even unintentionally) perpetuated, and as many will delight in them.

Good post, BronxBoy.

[Utopian Leftist]

147. Excellent point!

Someone should begin a letter-writing campaign to the New Yorker to get them to do the John McCain cover. It's only fair. Also he should be shown punching one of his colleagues because of his notorious temper.

[wvbygod]

148. That's not white satire

That is at best republican satire.

[dave123williams]

150. Republicans are like that old joke 'The Aristocrats'.

Except, it's not a performing family that does the act. It's insurance, big pharma, oil guys, defense contractors and politicians spooging and pooping all over each other.

There's your cartoon.

[Divine Discontent]

157. I enjoyed this nasty rant!

thank you, I posted the "stop the presses" thread the other day asking everyone to write them about preventing this trash from going out, and your feelings were great to read, and funny!

There are thousands of editorial cartoons lambasting people who happen to be white, the problem with this cartoon, is not just that the people on it are mulatto and black, it's that here we are at a point in American history where, after getting through slavery, and now giving women rights, and slowly but surely, Gay people equal rights (they will come!), we have a great leader in the making getting ridiculed by the very people that are supposed to support him! The New Yorker's big screw-up here is NOT ridiculing the very people that believe these things about Obama - instead they make a veritable recruitment poster for your local KKK group that hates "ni**ers, qu**rs, and sp*cs!", and they dropped the proverbial BALL by not having a dreaming Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity under the image of the Obamas in the Oval Office burning the American flag. No, they just have the image of the Obamas - what a laughable amateurish mistake! Sure, we net-savvy types GET what they're trying to do, but they failed horribly at doing so, and deserve our disgust!

Great post, BronxBoy :thumbsup:

More Designs At --- www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[rucky]

158. I never thought I'd say this to a Yankees fan...

:yourock:

[SlipperySlope]

159. Satire of Satire

[AlbertCat]

162. The New Yorker

satirizes whites and New Yorkers on every other cover they print.

The hysterics over this cover are sadder than any magazine cover.

[slackmaster]

166. Indeed, starting with the very first episode in 1925

[Divine Discontent]

170. maybe see where others are coming from

and realize because AA's are already recently coming off segregation in American history, and they were the slave populace 150 years ago and many people alive have been shared stories of their great-grandparents trials as slaves, that perhaps people are going to be a bit touchy when "satire" is so poorly done, that people who don't know who the New Yorker is, or don't know much about them other than the title, are going to rightly perceive it to be mocking the first black man to be the nominee for president as being Anti-American, and in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. How could anyone know, as the Newsweek guy said, that the image is supposed to be lampooning the stereotypes if there's no satirical comment on the cover or drawing showing a kooky right-winger who believes this.

Their argument that it's for their readers is weak, because looking at the cartoon instantly says controversy - and they placed it on the front page, with no words like, "politics of fear", or a small image of Rush or Hannity dreaming this visual - and worse even still - no accompanying article talking about the cover's subject matter.

What a boldly moronic move by them.

[aikoaiko]

167. I wish Obama would come out and say "it satire & its not mocking me" so the thought police can chill

I know a campaign staffer said it was offensive, but has Obama said anything directly yet?

[glitch]

196. Here is what he said on CNN

"I've seen and heard worse," he said. "I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6504642

[aikoaiko]

200. Obama did better than his staffer and the well-intentioned, but misguided reactionaries here at DU

[glitch]

203. He certainly did get the point across. BTW name-calling never an effective rebuttal. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

204. If he said it was satire.....

....the slick right-wing lie machine would run out spinning it that he was insulting the very crowd The New Yorker was mocking who believe everything in the cover to be true, a'la the "guns and bibles" dust up.

That's why this whole subject is a cluster fuck. It's a Rorschach test and everyone sees what they want to see.

[aikoaiko]

207. Maybe, but I doubt it. The image is The NYer's -- not his.

But I do see your point that he would have to be careful about how he embraced the satire.

[scarletwoman]

168. Thank you for your righteous post. Glad to rec.

That disgusting cover was bad enough, but to see people DEFENDING it just sends me over the edge. ESPECIALLY when they tout their superior intellectual abilities as the reason they "get it" -- because obviously those of us who object are simply too stupid to comprehend their rarified sophistication.

They can kiss MY old radical white ass.

sw

[Divine Discontent]

173. RIGHT ON!

and, when they're done kissing her radical white ass, they can kiss my radical gay ass! ;)

And sw, your point about these people screaming at us like we don't get it, but in their sophisticated brain, they GET it, and we're stupid - only goes to show they don't get WHY we all get it, but WHY it's horribly done. My post right above this says why to another person defending it!

take care

[scarletwoman]

177. Thank you.

With all the crap we've had to put up with, we DESERVE to have our asses kissed! :D

sw

[Skittles]

172. PREACH IT, BRONXBOY!!!

so sayeth Skittles, a white gal who GETS IT - yes INDEED! :thumbsup:

[Vinnie From Indy]

175. Amen!

I am mildly amused at the "it's satire so it's ok" crowd. Until the New Yorker runs something like BronxBoy lays out, they are fucking assholes and deserve every bit of criticism they get.

[DallasNE]

176. Jon Stewart Does Satire

This is not satire and those pushing that cock and bull story know it. How sick of them to play the dumb American card. This time they got caught.

[ut oh]

179. Unfortunately some people are taking it as many stated on here...

The only place I've seen the cover beyond the 'news' around it was in the sig of a poster on one of the motorcycle sites I'm a member of....

He is a neo-con lapdog and believes the image is the unadulterated truth about Obama.... Additionally there are several on that site that agree with him and cheered his posting of that image in his sig...

I get the satire, however, a majority of people seeing that are ABSOLUTELY NOT going to get it and think the New Yorker is trying to 'expose Obama for what he really is' or some lame ass equivalent.


And I think the OP is on point where they say that there should be an equally 'satirical' image of McCain and his wife. C'mon out with it New Yorker!

[sam kane]

180. EXACTLY.

Thank you.

[HughMoran]

181. righteous indignation - K&R

Best post of the week!

[Wednesdays]

188. There's a story?

:shrug:

"A lot of morons will look at that magazine cover on the newsstand and have that image seared into their consciousness and THEY WON'T BUY THE FUCKING MAGAZINE TO READ THE STORY."

Sorry, I haven't bought the magazine, and so I've relied on all the comments about it here on DU for info. And out of hundreds of posts about it, yours is the FIRST ONE I've read that mentions anything about a story!

[BronxBoy]

191. You people need to be ashamed of yourselves

nate festus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3624651

[glitch]

197. Lol! you're on a roll. nt

[aikoaiko]

201. TNY cover was "White" satire -- at least those folks (mostly white) who fear the Obamas as if...

... Michelle is an aggressive militant and Obama is a jihadist terrorist.

Would you like any more?

[BronxBoy]

211. Ah'm So Sorry...

nate festus here. nates daddy. He comes here calling hisself bronxboy but his momma named him nate. he'll always be nate.

anyway, I came home from driving my cab last night and all I could hear from the basement was nate just a laughin and a yellin. hes been like this before but I tend not to bother too much as nate is, well, special. Anyway he was making such a ruckus, I had to go down and see what was wrong. and there he was. In his underwear with the a shit eating grin on his face. I asked him "Boy. What you doin down here?" He just pointed at the screen and I saw that godawful message he left for you folks last night and how it's got you all in a tizzy.

Ah'm so sorry he came here bothering you folks with this stuff. That boy don't know nothin about no safire or any other types of jewelries. He wasn't raised that way. We ain't had no money for him to know about that type of stuff.

Lord have mercy, Ah'm so glad his momma has gone on to glory. it woulda killed her to see him coming here and making a stone cold fool of himself. Tellin you nice people what's acceptable and what's not. You don't need him for that.

But truth be told, I reckon it's his mommas fault. I told her she didn't need to keep doing wash to send that boy to Tubman's School of Cosmetology and Pundahtree. But she wanted him to be a barber and open a barber shop and sell them rocks out the back like his cousin ray ray. She had such high hopes for the boy. But he spent more time in the other part. I thought they was teaching the boy how to plant shit. not write on no damn computer. I guess ah'm to blame too. I shoulda put my foot down. he coulda learned how to sell rocks like everyone else does. in the streets. but you know how it is. you can't control a black woman when she wants her way. my daddy always used to say "the only thing madder than a black woman is a black man that can't have a white woman" Ain't that the truth. God rest his soul.

So to all you folks who said he didn't know what he was talkin about. you wuz right. Hell, that's a nice picture! That there Michell looks just like my niece, twiniesha. and even though everyone in the barber shops and the beauty salons and the fish stores all say it was a very disrespectful picture, he didn't have no call to come here and butt his nose into your people's bizness. we may not like the picture and think it's disrespectful but we were learned to not bother you folks about what we think. I brought the damn machine because I thought he would watch 40 oz bounce and play with himself. Not to be coming here bothin you peoples.

So please forgive the boy. Like I said, he wasn't raised around no jewelries and stuff so I don't know why he came round here getting in all of you folks bizness. That was a really pretty picture that man drewed and I can seem why so of you got mad. and like I told him last night. Ain't no room full of well meaning important folks gonna let no pictures of us that's really bad be put on the magazine.

we got him tied to the radiaitor in the next room. but he's good at gettin loose. If he comes back here botherin you all tell him that you know HIS BUTT IS ASHY.

that's right he got an ashy butt. not shiny, ashy. boys been ashy since then day he was born. tell him that you know that his brother cornbread died in the great west bronx fire. and it started when all that vaseline his momma had to keep around ignited when cornbread flicked that ash off his blunt. That always puts him in his place.

"kiss my shiny black ass"

Lord have mercy, where did we go wrong??????

[Karenina]

215. !!!!!!!!!!

:spray:

[McCamy Taylor]

212. I wanna see John wearing 1000 medals and flags while Cindy shoots up.

She needs to be dressed in a tiara, diamonds, furs. Their jet is in the background. John is going on and on about how he hates to talk about his POW days. His face is sagging so badly it almost touches the floor. There is a bald kid on a leash in a hospital gown who is asking for something for pain and Cindy tells him to shut up, all the pain meds are for her.

That would be fair and equal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

214. What would that be satirising? I think you've completely missed the point.

There has been a whole wave of attacks on Barack Obama for silly things - the "fist bump", not saying the pledge, etc.

Those attacks are silly, and hence a good target for satire.

The New Yorker cover was *against* those attacks, not supporting them.

If there had been a corresponding wave of silly attacks on McCain for his race, a cartoon satirising those attacks (and hence defending McCain), which would be the flip side of the cartoon defending Obama that so many DUers have got so worked up about, might have a market, but it would be fairly disimmilar to the cartoon *attacking* McCain that you're describing.

But, so far as I know, there haven't been many clearly-silly attacks on McCain corresponding to the ones being mocked by the New Yorker.