The ability to understand satire is directly linked to one's level of intelligence. The less intelligent, the more difficult it is for that person to understand satire. Knowing this, I wasn't surprised to see that much of the mainstream media simply didn't "get it" when it came to the New Yorker's satirical Obama cover.

I think the cover made an outstanding point, showing how ridiculous the anti-Obama rhetoric had become.

About New Yorker cover, You may want to check out this article:
http://www.asianweek.com/2008/07/17/wheres-the-racism-in-new-yorker-cover/

I never said I don't have any problems with the lampooning of minorities, just that I value artistic freedom higher than anyone's "right" to not be offended. I hope that speaks volumes about my world view and also shows why I don't really have a problem with the cover. If you want to use ad hominem against me, that's fine, just please don't put words in my mouth to do it. It really weakens your argument.

Thanks for that CounterPunch link, by the way. I've lost a lot of respect for the New Yorker. I still think this particular cartoon was meant to lampoon the right's idiocy, however, and was hilarious in its absurdity. I notice Reed say Blitt's intentions are unclear--I should take a look at his (Blitt's) previous work and see what it suggests. I also notice Reed cites Art Spiegelman as a trustworthy witness against the New Yorker, and Spiegelman defended the Obama cartoon. Good article.

Here are a couple of links you might find interesting:
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/30222/Default.aspx
http://dada.warped.com/cjclark/theolive/antisatire.html

barely cognizant -- "I've argued before that art shouldn't be a slave to politics of the right, left, or center. The same goes for humor."

The fact that you dont have any problems with denigration or lampooning of minorities, in the name of art, speaks volumes about your world view and also shows why you dont really have a problem with the 'cover'.

Ishmael Reed's article opened my eyes to the 'liberal' New Yorkers choice of cartoonists.
http://www.counterpunch.org/reed07212008.html

Yep, nothin' I like better than relaxin' on my front porch with my big ol' bloodhound and my .22 rifle, pickin' off squirrels (damn good eatin'!) here and there while Ma's fixin' up some vittles for supper. I like to put on the radio to that Rush fellah and set down with my brand-spankin' new copy a The New Yawker, jus' to catch up on what them sophisticated folks up there in the Big Apple is up to. WHUT?!?! Why, I nearly swallowed my chewin' tobacco! Lookie here, that there Muslim Hoo-sane Osama fella with the crazy pastor what be runnin' for president done got hisself a wife who's a terrorist and is burnin' flags in the fireplace an' all!!! Why, it's all right here in this here artist's renderin' on the cover! Just as I suspected! Oh, boy, wait until I tell the next meetin' of the White Citizens Council, by Gee and Jay!

"just like it's so convenient to categorize this stupidly ugly and incendiary magazine cover as 'satire', which is ironically an excellent example of why satire secretly sucks . . ."

How can a cover, which you claim is not satire, be proof that all satire is bad?

"If i object to the 'cover' im automatically confined to the dustbin of 'humoreless, priggish pseudo-progressive' and if I approve I somehow 'get it' ?!"

Why the scare quotes around the word cover?

No, it's also possible that if you disapprove it's because you're a bigot who knows he's being lampooned or that if you approve it's because you're a bigot who's too stupid to know he's being lampooned. But I've pointed out already that blairza made a good argument against the cartoon. My problem is not with those who think it's a failed satire because it will hurt the feelings of the oppressed and won't offend the ignorant right-wingers being lampooned, but with those who see it as a conspiratorial attempt to confirm and spread the silly and hysterical lies of the right, whether they be stupid right-wingers, stupid left-wingers, or stupid centrists.

I've argued before that art shouldn't be a slave to politics of the right, left, or center. The same goes for humor. Only complete idiots think the Obamas are anti-American crypto-Islamofascists. I'm far more anti-American than they are. If believing we shouldn't dumb-down our culture so that every miseducated adult-child of a Republican can understand it makes me an elitist, then I'm an elitist! (I'm waiting for someone to chop the context off the end of that sentence.) And if you're claiming the cartoon wasn't intended as a joke, you're confining yourself to the dustbin.

--- barely-human -- "My objection is to the apparently humorless, priggish pseudo-progressives who see and interpret the cartoon exactly like those uneducated, right-wing masses."

This is barely concealed ignorance at best and stupidly bigoted at worst. If i object to the 'cover' im automatically confined to the dustbin of 'humoreless, priggish pseudo-progressive' and if I approve I somehow 'get it' ?! What a complete idiot.

--- And then this gem : tetti -- "It exposed manny Americans for what they are, white-supremacist ignorant bigots. And also incapable of getting a joke."

Since I object to the cover im a 'white-supremacist' AND incapable of getting a 'joke' !! Do you normally pull these kind of statements out of your ass or is it just me ?

apparently barely human has consigned me to his own personal category of 'apparently humorless, priggish pseudo-progressives' . . . it's just so convenient to categorize people, then they fit neatly into one's own world-view . . .

just like it's so convenient to categorize this stupidly ugly and incendiary magazine cover as 'satire', which is ironically an excellent example of why satire secretly sucks . . .

The kind of people swayed by a cartoon wouldn't vote for Obama in the first place.

I loved the satire. It exposed manny Americans for what they are, white-supremacist ignorant bigots. And also incapable of getting a joke.

It was a missed opportunity for Obama to laugh it off and take advantage of the situation by confronting racism and bigotry, a mistake MLK or JFK wouldn't have committed.

"If you said, what do you think bro, to most, what do think you'd get back?"

Of course there are idiots who won't get it. My objection is to the apparently humorless, priggish pseudo-progressives who see and interpret the cartoon exactly like those uneducated, right-wing masses. They may think the cartoon is intentionally harmful, but I think they're dumbing themselves down and possibly projecting.

alaskamaid [July 19th, 2008 9:02 pm] please reread lisa3210peace's [July 19th, 2008 1:54 am] comment responding to Tree Fitz. From reading other of Lisa's posts here at CD, I thought she was being satirical by parroting the neocon line on Muslims. That's what I was 'hee heeing' about. I was being sincere -- that WAS satire.

Of course, now I'm going to be in trouble with lisa3210peace [July 20th, 2008 8:00 am] since I don't agree that any cartoon in the New Yorker is going to have that much affect but, if it does, we're irretrievably cooked as a country anyhow. To quote Phil Proctor, formerly of satirical group The Firesign Theatre:

"And give me a break about that New Yorker cover. All the idiots out there who believe every Neocon lie about the Obamas will eat this crap up with a spoon anyway. So where's our national sense of humor gone? Mark Twain and Will Rogers must be rolling over in their 'graves.' If our Dumbocracy re-elects Grandpa Bushy McPain, then the Reich is kaput!"
-- Phil Proctor, Planet Proctor 14, 2008.
http://www.planetproctor.com

There are plenty of bozos on our USA bus, but that doesn't mean we have to turn ourselves into clowns by catering to their stupidity. Just the opposite -- we should be leading the charge for freedom of speech and expression, especially that kind of speech that we don't like. To do otherwise makes us into the neocons we despise and turns our Bill of Rights into a bad joke.

barely human; the 'masses' as you call them won't see the New Yorker a whole lot, but imagine if you will, showing that picture to people across America as they drive their trucks, lay carpet and watch TV.

If you said, what do you think bro, to most, what do think you'd get back?

Try this; Looks like a fuckin A-rab, O-sama hidin on da wall-we found him, and some bitch with a f-ire arm.

Or, Oh my that is clever Satire accurately portraying the insidious defamation of Obama in the Main Stream Media?

HHHmmmmm.....

"riddimboy, I don't have a dick. "

Oh you poor thing. What a pity. I could lend you mine .. but im running short.

I want to be sure I'm correctly understanding some of the comments here. Are some of you claiming that the artist who drew this cover consciously intended to make the uneducated masses believe Obama is a Muslim who hates America?

If so, we have indeed surpassed satire. And I lament that fact.

RSJ -- my bad for assuming that all supermarkets are as eclectic as the ones in the far north, but then i suppose not all populations are as eclectic as ours . . .

So, substitute 'magazine stand' for supermarket, there are tons of those most places, think about the guy going to one to get Popular Mechanics or the woman buying Good Housekeeping (to use some nonsatirical stereotypical examples, there are many perfectly good people who fit that profile), or whatever . . .

the point is, the IMAGE is there and that is ALL they will see, it is all they are intended to see . . .

and please don't diss honest responses with your fake 'satirical' hee-hees, it makes you look bad . . .
and nobody here would want that . . .

riddimboy, I don't have a dick. So I don't know what you are referring to. It sounds like the kind of stuff that makes males look so stupid so often.

Excuse me, alaskamaid [July 19th, 2008 12:35 pm] but the last time I was in a supermarket check-out lane I saw all kinds of magazines -- National Enquirer, US, People, et al -- but no New Yorker. The NY is not the kind of thing stores stock in the magazine kiosk at the check-out aisle.

riddimboy [July 18th, 2008 11:26 am], Europe more racist than the US? That must be the reason why some of my black friends who play jazz and blues moved from Chicago and New York to such places as Denmark, Germany and France, where they can make a decent living playing American music and are treated like human beings by the police and their white neighbors.

greenerthanthou [July 18th, 2008 3:28 pm] I have met the scary people (none recently) who thought Stephen Colbert's act was real. They couldn't figure out why his show was on the Comedy Channel. No surprise, some of these folks obviously book for the White House dinner. As comedian Ron White once said "You can't fix stupid." I'd add, and that's why the Bushites can never fix what's gone wrong.

lisa3210peace [July 19th, 2008 1:54 am] ;) hee, hee -- now THAT'S satire!

great post alaskamaid

Images directly affect the reptilian brain in ways that words cannot. This was a carefully planned IMAGE which had two intended audiences : the readers/subscribers who 'get it', and the browsers at the supermarket counter who check out all the magazine covers while they are waiting in line. Which is the bigger audience, and how will that IMAGE affect them ?

Hiding behind the term 'satire' is cowardly. A great deal of evil lurks behind the 'innocent' phrase, 'but i was only joking' . . .

As blairza correctly observed, "It's an old trick of the White Patriarchy to impugn the 'sense of humor' of women and people of color when they speak up for their dignity."

You have to be in a position of superiority to pull off a 'joke' like this. And if i was Michelle Obama i would be VERY offended by an image of me toting an assault rifle in the oval office. Regardless of who that meant i was supposed to represent. . . if this is satire, it is in-your-face tasteless.

riddimboy July 18th, 2008 9:02 pm

Congratulations!

Indeed, reality has indeed surpased satire.

Where I live it's bravado...

Treefitz

Muslim is not a religion

Remember 9-11?

Terrorists have no God

Just desires to erase Democracies from the pages of time,

And kill your mother and children

They are born that way.

And another thought: I sure hope the Obama campaign will directly address the Muslim issue. I want him to say, loud and clear that freedom of religion is a real value in this country, that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim. I would like to see him using his bully pulpit to surface meaningful dialogue. I believe that if he were to address this issue fearlessly, he would actually be acting like a leader . . . and he would be perceived more positively. It disgusts me that he seems to cower from the mere mention of the word Muslim. . . that is scary to me.

Curiously, I just posted a comment that disappeared. I am going to repost the gist of my lost comments.

I like Pitts commentary. He's right. We're beyond satire nowadays, and, as he states in his last sentence, nothing is more outrageous than the truth.

Chillax, folks. Political satire is one of the things that, um, is supposed to be okay in a so-called free country.

I take exception to Pitts declaration that no black person has used the word whitey since The Jeffersons went off the air in 1985. Pitts, where and how do you live? Do you live in some kind of insulated bubble? I ask because I am a middle-aged white chick, I don't own a car and I intersect with anonymous nonwhite people on public transit. At least once or twice a year, a black person calls me whitey, accompanied by at least a few additional hate statements. "Get out of my way, whitey" or "Don't look at me you white b. . ." More than once, I've had black men, complete strangers at bus stops say to me "I have to deal with whitey all day at work. I don't have to be polite to whitey here." and all I was doing was asking for directions. . .For some reason, it seems to be okay for nonwhites to voice their hatred of whites in public but I am pretty sure I would be putting myself in meaningful risk if I were to routinely make hate statements to nonwhites at busstops. For some reason, it seems acceptable for nonwhites to voice racial hatred, like, what, all whites MUST be racist, all whites MUST be guilty and, what, white racism justifies nonwhite racism? Can you imagine me, or any other sane white person, standing at a bus stop in downtown Oakland and voicing a statement similar whitey?!!

Ultimately, one of the reasons I am glad Obama is the Democratic nominee is because his racial heritage is forcing all of us to examine the corrosive, lingering effects of racism. Bring it on. We need to have these dialogues. . . and the New Yorker satire is as good a place to start as any other.

"New York has a pretty educated, sophisticated readership."

Yes. In Hell's Kitchen, Harlem and the Bronx.

But for absolute spiritual depravity and moral apathy, Manhatten is "terribly sophisticated, now didn't you know?"

Quite lovely, I take tea there when I'm in town my mother-fucking self.

The Five Seasons. Of course I keep a table there.

Well…if you don't like the reactions then it has to be …education, education, education! Start with the children….ALL children.

araquin -- "They find most whites so tight-assed that they fear that when you insert a piece of coal into the anus of most whites, you'd be able to retrieve a diamond after a while."

Judging by your attitude you should try inserting a cattleprod ... maybe that will induce a dose of humility. Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. Go back and read the excellent posts by blairza, ambramwicz, alex etc. I don't need to restate what they said and yeah my dick is bigger than yours.

Unfortunately, the "New Yorker" cover may do more harm than good to Obama's campaign because the subtely of the satire will elude many readers or perusers of the cover. I worry, too, about people who generally do not buy the magazine but who will ogle the cover and maybe even purchase the issue because it will appear to confirm their stereotypes of the Obamas.

It's sad that we live in such times.

Anyone who'd be swayed in their vote by a silly cartoon in the New Yorker isn't likely to vote for Obama anyway. No one will remember this in a couple of weeks at any rate — by then we'll be seeing pictures of Obama shaking hands with an average Iraqi and Fox News oaf Steve Doocy wondering whether he exchanged a 'secret Muslim sign' with the man. That will be picked up by the Usual Suspects of the BM Punditrocracy: Did Obama give secret signals to an Iraqi during his recent fact-finding trip there? Pat Buchanan, your thoughts." Or maybe he'll be accused by Sean Hannity of 'dissing the troops' because he scratched his cheek with his middle finger during a speech in Baghdad. All the GOP has this year is this kind of ludicrous crapola, and they'll use it — this New Yorker cartoon is nothing in comparison to the monkey cage they'll be emptying on Obama.

There is only one solution to this dust-up that will soon be forgotten: Let's put pressure on the New Yorker to run a cover next issue of McCain in a Gilbert & Sullivan admiral's uniform festooned with giant cartoon medals wearing flip-flops, stepping on the Little Guy and gripping fistfuls of cash while wife Cindy holds a Bud in one hand and pops pills with the other, with a bandolier of Anheuser-Busch products around her chest. She can be wearing an ICBM on her back, with a portrait of George W. Bush with a tiny Hitler mustache on the wall. The Constitution can be burning in the fireplace, while the walls drip blood spelling out "The Troops." It may not be that funny, but it's only fair.

riddimboy, I suggest you change your beverage. Try something harmless like camomile tea instead to calm down.

And of course there is racism in Europe as well.

But as far as I can see - to return to the topic -, The New Yorker attacked - and by our standards over here, very well actually - exactly the stereotypes and the overt and hidden racism that's accompanying Obama's run for president. And they used the equivalent of the A-bomb in political disputes: Satire. They ridiculed the politics of libel and slander and fear of the right. More forcefully than any other publication, IMO.

And BTW: MY black friends in the US have the best sense of humour of all Americans I know. They find most whites so tight-assed that they fear that when you insert a piece of coal into the anus of most whites, you'd be able to retrieve a diamond after a while.

Considering the complete lack of understanding of the power of satire and irony as a strong political weapon by so many here, I totally agree.

greenerthanthou July 18th, 2008 3:41 pm

I don't have to say much, keep it up.

"The people who are shocked and revolted by these cartoons are not the people responsible for the lies about the Obamas, so in some sense the New yorker missed it's mark. It's an old trick of White Patriarchy to impugn the "sense of humor" of women and pople of color when they speak up for their dignity. The attacks against Obama are forcing progressives into a very dicey moral corner. These images of the Obamas are unfair and inaccurate, but in asserting that fact we silently endorse the marginaslization of Muslims and the Black Left."

This is the only argument against the cartoon so far that I think has validity.

I still think the cartoon is hilarious. But then I like Dead Baby jokes.

I finally got my New Yorker. Apparently they mail it late to rural folks in Illinois.

Screw the cover!! The most offensive thing in the magazine is a pro-Obama apologist propaganda piece by Hendrik Hertzberg.

By the way, someone apparently didn't get that Stephen Colbert was a satirist, since they invited him to the Press Club Dinner. Whoops!

And my son and I both had the same reaction the first time we read an Ann Coulter column. Ha, Ha, that's pretty funny. We thought it was over the top satire. Whoops!

The New Yorker doesn't satirize white "upper middle class" people? Are you kidding? Have you never seen their cartoons? They're almost always satirizing such folks.

This is equivalent to the Danish cartoons. It is manufactured outrage. Those Muslims didn't care about those cartoons when they first came out. They had to be whipped into frenzy by their imans.

And why did the media cover every demonstration by the Muslims around the world, no matter if it was 100 people at a embassy, while totally ignoring the hundreds of thousands demonstrating against the war here in Wash, DC?

We are being manipulated, folks. Why is Commondreams covering this story while totally ignoring Cynthia McKinney's nomination for President?

My smart niece has the perfect solution to this whole mess - The New Yorker should have sent a laugh track along with the magazine.

leftk "Seriously, we can't completely blame the media for our stupidity."

You are right, which is why i mentioned our hyper-capitalist, disproportionate society at large for our problems. Privileged, upper-class white people will never be able to understand or analyze what it means to not be able to afford an education for your kids, or not being able to afford rent, or barely subsisting on food stamps.

Unless you are involved in outreach programs in inner cities you will never be able to grasp what afflicts the under-privileged. Its too fucking easy to sit in your cozy little home in your leafy neighborhood and look down on the people who were never born into privilege.

As for Europe you should try and travel extensively like I have in Europe with my black friends and document the various instances ive squirmed in my seat for reasons that can only be termed as closet racism. Addressing or mentioning this is not only helpful but necessary ... unless you are ashamed of some family secrets spilling out ...

Siouxrose July 18th, 2008 11:38 am
"New York has a pretty educated, sophisticated readership. No doubt the satire gets across to that group."

I do not agree.

First, the pictorialization of right wing lies is - technically - not satire, since it does not exaggerate what is being satirized (right wing propaganda), but only gives it pictorial form.

Second, the idea that a particular readership "gets" it as satire overlooks its function, which is to insulate that "sophisticated readership" from a visceral experience of American hate speech.

piltdownman July 17th, 2008 5:17 pm
Satire is dead among those Americans who actually thought the Beverly Hillbillies lived in the mansion where the show was filmed.

They didn't?

I don't find the racist use of white any more charming than black, brown, yellow, red neck, nigger, gook or others. They are all racist and bigoted terms when used to denigrate.

Riddimboy,

You're slamming Europeans is totally out of line.

Seriously, we can't completely blame the media for our stupidity. We also are too complacent to dare to go beyond what we are told just as Germans were responsible for letting Hitler get into power.

Saying Europe is far more racist than the US is a tough claim to back up. It also strikes me as not very helpful. We have a lot of racism in the US and we need to deal with it instead of criticizing Europe.

ALEX NOSAL: YES!

BLAIRZA: Great analysis.

LUCKY LEFTY: I think you're right on this one.

New York has a pretty educated, sophisticated readership. No doubt the satire gets across to that group. The same reaction will not be had by those who have been fed a steady diet of FOX "news" for years.

There should have been another cartoon showing the RIGHT'S imbecile in some equally satirized position.

I tried to buy a copy of this issue yesterday. Every newstand in Hoboken was sold out.

araquin -- "It is WRONG to be stupid. It is WRONG to be uninformed. It is WRONG to want to remain uneducated. Greetings from Europe!!!"

Its also WRONG to bend over and grease up every time an American politician comes visiting, which is what pretty much every 'European' country does. Its WRONG to drop to your knees every time Cheney comes knocking on your door. Europe is far more racist than the U.S. will ever be.

Being 'stupid', 'uninformed', 'uneducated' are to a large extent products of our hyper-capitalist society ruled by 'white' elitists that would much rather keep the population that way. Dont blame the victims. You sound like a white Republican prick.

Imagine a New Yorker cover showing a young well-fed McCain in a POW camp, luxuriously relaxing in a beach chair being served cocktails by scantily-dressed Vietnamese women, caricatured NVA looking on, behind which is a scene of US POWs playing Russian roulette (a la "Deer Hunter"), and a US flag burning in the fireplace.

Satire or smear?

The title of the cartoon is The Politics of Fear.

Vote hope:
www.carolmillercongress.com

What passes for humor among genocidal cannibals is NOT satire. They don't get it and don't like it. Their humor has a purpose. Their humor kills.

Fuck `em if they can't take a joke.

For a healthy dose of satire and poignant characterizations of our great leaders, see http://www.markfiore.com . It is not for the faint of heart however.

Some very entertaining comments here. This is nothing new, as these quotes attest:

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
– Mark Twain in "Huckleberry Finn."

"A supporter once called out, 'Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!' And Adlai Stevenson answered, 'That's not enough. I need a majority.'"
– Scott Simon

As the late Kurt Vonnegut might say, 'So it goes.'

Igorance is a CHOICE and always will be!

Anybody else read this far and feel like they fell down the Rabbit's Hole into anti-wonderland?

The cartoon takes all of the crazy-B.S. the Nazi Conservatives get themselves into a pre-sexual lather of exitement about in re Barack Obama and throws them all together -this lets the viewer see how truly ridiculous these notions are. I mean, we're talking about a Harvard Lawyer, Sitting U.S. Senator, and Candidate for the Dem Party for Prez. and those loonies actually see all THIS! Get it? Funny, right? It is, trust me.

It's PRO-OBAMA! Fer eff's sake!

Or at least its anti-Ridiculous Fear-Based Lies, which is even better.

Frankly the response to the work is, to me, the funniest part.

I'm with Mr. Pitts, the "freak-out" over this FUNNY DRAWING says more about what a bizarre place the U.S. -or at least TV's "america"- has become than anything else.

Get a Sense of Humor folks.

Drop the worry that the "rubes won't get it" -THAT'S "elitist".

And stop calling for the supression of artistic expression -you sound like Nazis, do you realize that?

Have some damned Fun, before you really annoy the crap outta me.

-matti.

Actually, I agree with many here. The cartoon is not funny. Like a comedian who tells a joke and doesn't get a laugh, the New Yorker bombed.

I respect Muslims and I respect Angela Davis.

Here's an original:

How can you tell a hippie Klansmen?

bythetiediedsheets

And why is it never Open-Season on these dope smoking Hippies?"

becausethey'rehardtoclean.....

Here is a clean one: What do you call a Republican Hooker with a runny nose?

thatwouldbefull.

I don't want to be called anti-hooker here, I respect honest crack smoking streetwalkers more than any american politician or most slutty soccer mommies for that matter.

That's it! I'm going over to NewsMax to try out some of this material on the flying monkeys! Good night, and thanks for cuming.

how can you fake something you've never had?

blairza : "The attacks against Obama are forcing progressives into a very dicey moral corner. These images of the Obamas are unfair and inaccurate, but in asserting that fact we silently endorse the marginaslization of Muslims and the Black Left."

Thanks for articulating this and the rest of your post so well. It just about sums up what a lot of us feel. Just when you feel you've seen it all, you run smack-dab into white 'liberals' hiding behind the veneer of satire and secretly endorsing the very same stereotypes the New Yorker satirized !

Great racial satire: Blazing Saddles

Also, I lived a while in Germany. There is a strong perception over there that Americans don't understand irony. I heard it a lot, especially when someone was finding out that some of us do get it.

Wait just a minute here, are you saying women have orgasms too?

The same guy who did the cartoon did one of the Iranian leader having an affair with Larry Craig. Zero satire and no sense. This guy is just warped and does not like people of color.

Hiiary in 2012. That was the title and intent of the cover.

abramawicz: Thanks for your clear post.

I think most honest satire is motivated by a desire to illuminate truths and make people laugh.

I was repelled by a myraid of the 'cartoon's' "qualities."

Anyone who spontaneously laughed at that depiction is probably a sexist rascist. And, if that weren't ugly enough, it maligns Islam.

Here is Funny: How many rednecks does it take to eat oppossum?

two, onetoeatitandonetowatchforcars.

Here is funny; Why do women fake orgasms?

togetitoverwith.

The last one is interesting because insecure sexist males will not like it. So you tell these losers, actually, it's because women think men care......

I'm just satirizing humor. And i'm serious about this.

Ok, Ok, Ok. One last try, I'm sure this one will work for all you "lesser-evilist, Nader-voters" out there -

Same scenario of Bush on the toilet, but this time Obama is in the booth next to him, and Bush says, "Hey I'm out of paper here, can you spare a little?" And Obama says, "I just used the Fourth Ammendment, but I can let you have the 5th through the 10th."

Or what about three booths, Bush in the right, Obama in the left, and in the middle booth is a wide-stanced Larry Craig....

Damn, this is a really tough crowd! Did I come to a wake by mistake?

Ok, I've got it, what if he tears off the preamble part, you know, "We The People" part?

SWIFT'S SATIRE WAS DRIVEN BY MORAL RAGE. ON THE CONTRARY...

...the New Yorker cartoon, by inviting viewers to 'get' the joke – it has pictorialized the 'silly' and 'hysterical' right wing 'rants' at Obama, showing them to be 'a cartoon' – neutralizes feelings we normally have about this hateful agitprop and the right wing scum that spread it.

In place of those feelings, a viewer is invited to adopt an attitude of genteel emotional detachment towards this clever 'representation of right wing thought as a cartoon.'

This is not satire and it is not motivated by anger. It is motivated by the impulse to detachment. Swift responded to the horrors of his time with moral rage. The New Yorker cartoon responds with moral numbness.

alexnosal, what a post! The sum of all my fears. You are my new hero. Too bad you're preaching to the choir, but keep it up.

No one is threatening the New Yorker with legal sanctions or violence, so analogies to the Danish Cartoon flap are over the top. There seems to be a consistant argument that because something is satire it is somehow immune to criticism. But satire can be racist or sexist, and it can also be clumsy. I accept that the cover satire and that the New Yorker intended to critique the anti Obama smears. The New Yorker however must face the fact that these images are incendiary and painful to many people of good faith. When Swift angered his readers it was appropriate, because they were the people morally responsible for the degradation and oppression of the irish people. They, the English middle class could use some shock and revulsion. The people who are shocked and revolted by these cartoons are not the people responsible for the lies about the Obamas, so in some sense the New yorker missed it's mark. It's an old trick of White Patriarchy to impugn the "sense of humor" of women and pople of color when they speak up for their dignity.
The attacks against Obama are forcing progressives into a very dicey moral corner. These images of the Obamas are unfair and inaccurate, but in asserting that fact we silently endorse the marginaslization of Muslims and the Black Left.

Ok, here is some more SATIRE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN -

Bush sitting on the toilet with his pants down, the Constitution and Bill of Rights wrapped around and hanging from the toilet paper holder, as Bush tears off a few of the first ten ammendments to wipe his butt!

NOW, THAT IS SATIRE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

The next few months will be a lesson to anyone who is interested in analyzing the MSM's manipulation of the truth with regard to the upcoming elections. Knife and Fork issues of course will be absent; while each candidate tries to out do the other in embracing 'unfettered capitalism' and any good news out of Wall Street.
As usual Obama will be smeared because corporate America still prefers McCain (though they have hand picked both!) and average Americans will be filled with a torrent of reasons of why they're paying too much for gas/electricity/phone bills/etc., losing their job and/or benefits and 'losing the wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet there will be no mention of the true reasons for our misery... a government bought and paid for by multinationals who are willing to sacrifice the majority in the name of profits. The false association between open markets and democracy will be made while both candidates repeatedly swear their allegiance to the "American People" while only lending an ear to a small cabal of rich and powerful.
No candidate will ever suggest a rise in corporate taxes, a decrease in military spending or nationalizing anything. Nor will any candidate suggest universal healthcare, acquiescing the wishes of the Iraqi people and withdrawing all troops and bases at once or eliminating Homeland Security and their 200,000 crappy jobs.
Rhetoric will be king as the U.S. accelerates its slide to third world status. The corpocracy has seized our democracy, our airwaves and newsprint, our schools and textbooks, our entertainment and our security in such a deft manner, that Americans are still pointing their fingers in the wrong direction.
"It's the Chinese!" "It's the government!" "It's those damn immigrants!" "It's a temporary downward cycle!"
For future students of history, the problems surrounding the suffering of working class Americans will seem so obvious that no one will understand why it wasn't stopped. The propaganda will seem childish in retrospect and the crimes of the neo-cons as heinous as those of Hitler or Stalin. But for those of us who are still around then to explain our actions, we will only defend ourselves by saying that we were powerless to stop it.
"I voted for Ralph Nader, but no one else did!" "I read Common Dreams everyday!" "I drove a Smart car, recycled and avoided the draft!"
Don't worry; your grandchildren won't hate you. Instead they'll just think that they're a hell of a lot smarter than you are. `
I hope they're right.

Araquin -- "Is it cool to be stupid where you live? Not where I live."

Depends shitface ... is it cool to be racist where you live ? I live in San Francisco ... my coolness for the day depends which moron i meet or chance upon in a blog.

Jesus, the cartoon was just not funny.

Monty Python did satire. Steve Martin did satire. Stephen Colbert does satire. David Remnick, it would appear, does not do satire.

True "satire" would be George & Laura in the Oval office, along with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the Fox gang dressed up in terrorist drag, fist-bumping in celebration as a TV screen on the wall flashes, "McCain Victory! Racial & Religous Bigotry Help Fuel Obama Defeat!"

Politically Correct... meet Free Speech
Free Speech, meet Politically Correct...

Hola, folks this is one guy that knows what is up amd I especially enjoy eher in local rag in redneck ignorant obese,greedy riviera Myrtle Beach
his rants and satire are welcomed each week, the paper is McClatchy owned, actually some folks expanding on the truth
even though they still insert many ignoramus's like Cal and Amy etc
good to see your wit here Sir, in CDreams

yes, me again, that 'el gringo'
"eat mo' fish"

and ok,ok
IMPEACH and hang in Public,

starting with bush fool mama, daughter of Aleister Crowley, Ozzie in the White House? yes, baby sacrificiers always welcome there with all the Bilderburg Buddies. {those of soon to be crab bait
12 Million de la Raza!!!!! con armas, jaaaaaaaaaaa}

anyway
another Pabst for the road, and that is something the little dick chinese CANNOT copy
Pabst AMERICAN Beer
you folks will have problems soon in regards to the military earthquake machine in Alaska, they know ALL about it those chinks with 5000 year old memory
serves you all right for buying that cheap crap to pay for their military war machine
Muslims terrorists, they are nada in comparison to 'the sleeping giant'

been there 10 times, they do not like gringos and black folks the worst

Real satire would have been the picture on the New Yorker cover, on a large monitor screen in the background, with a forground featuring a wild-eyed, open-mouthed, saliva dripping visage of Bill O'Really in the "Nose-Pin Zone", and a caption reading,
"NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!"

Now, THAT would be REAL SATIRE!

G. Gorden Liddy said on his show that the New Yorker had finally got it right.

"Note: Voltaire was the inventor of electricity, that is why they call it "volts.""

Wow! Now I'm reallt worried. With people pushing this stuff on CD, what hope is left?

Excuse me but every second grader knows electricity was invented by Ben Franklin. (Remember the kite with the key? Hello!?) Volts was the name of Ben's cat who was named after Voltaire. Ironicallt, volts met an untimely demise during one of Ben's other electrical experiments using a crude PV cell Ben reconstructed from some of DaVinci's sketches. Ben's other cat, Tesla, was injured but escaped with all 9 lives in tact.

And those of you patting yourselves on the back about "getting it" and assuming that those of us who find this cover repugnant and stupid must be lacking in our appreciation of humor, irony, satire, etc., please refrain from lecturing us. We get the joke. We see the point. We just don't find it funny or helpful.

KANE 51: Most excellent post.

ADROC said, "Furthermore, are the Yale/Harvard neocon intellectuals that make up Bush's cabinet and populate the right wing think tanks not intellectual 'elitists' to the same degree as liberal intellectuals?" Obviously something went very wrong that minds so theoretically honed could turn to what they have. That brings us to the lesser tested premise of EMOTIONAL I.Q... the Bush people have extremely low scores in that basis for evaluation, how else to use your brain to promote unapologetic cruelty, senseless slaughter, what can be called little other than what it is: Pure evil.

I think the New Yorker missed satire by not putting a caption on the bottom like, "Dumb Shit Morons Believe" or similar.

I fully expected a majority of readers here to find the New Yorker cover not only appropriate, but clever.

Sadly, I was correct.

I'm quite sure the band leader on the Tonight Show was John Coultrane.... or was it Little Richard?

This whole New Yorker media firestorm has an air of the surreal about it. Next, CNN or Fox will roll out a dedicated graphic, with theme music heavy on the ominous subsonics.

It's a CARTOON. Who gets all whooping, leaping, and frothing at the mouth about cartoons? Islamic fundamentalist fanatics.

If this world made any sense, Obama could camp up that cover like the old photo of Harry holding the Tribune's "Dewey Defeats Truman" front page.

Sheesh some ppl jus dont get it wit this atire thing. We gotta support Obama whatever he wants to wear.

Vote D. Or McCain'll ban funnies an robes etc.

adroc wrote: "Further to Kane's point about many or most people not 'getting' the New Yorker cover's satire… you're right, BUT the people who wouldn't 'get it' would most likely never see the cover of the New Yorker, but have now because it's all over the mainstream media."

You are absolutely correct here. Their understanding of the satire, then, would be dependent on the ability of the TV media to explain it clearly.

I hope they had better luck than I did when I was in the classroom trying to explain satire to the less-gifted students. There are just some people who will NEVER get it...because they CAN'T! Subtlety is always lost on them.

leftk July 17th, 2008 7:22 pm

I am still rolling on the floor.....THANKS!

lisa3210peace July 17th, 2008 8:32 pm
Poet; I have a Final Solution. And want to implenent it.

Now this sounds like the first workable plan put forth. Congratulations.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

A little humour is due : " I don't agree with your bumper sticker but I agree with your right to stick it."

Poet; I have a Final Solution. And want to implenent it.

All the Israelis and Palestinians can come and live at my house. I will cook but everyone has to do their own dishes and no hitting.

And any bullshit from anybody and they get a time-out, but only until they feel better.

Even pot smoking's okay, but no cigarette's or alcohol.

In fact, if we all get 'scripts, I can legally grow I fgure ten million plants for us. Medical plants.

Oh yeah, no video games. No TV.

adroc; The New Yorker cover is an exageration of TRUTH as an astonishing number of americans believe it.

About 35% think he's Muslim

How many American's link muslims to terrorism?

"Satire is tricky. It makes it's point by exaggerating wildly"

Have you read that anywhere before? I think I read it somewhere, maybe I did not. But it would have referred to exaggerating the TRUTH.

So your logic is 100% faulty. But only 100%, so that's not bad.

Hey, if you can find that quote, I'll admit I'm wrong. Maybe I didn't read it anywhere, just made it up after a bong hit.

Oh, and talking of satire, one of my all-time favourites is:

If you are beginning to resemble the photo on your ID, you are in very dire need of a vacation! (Ephraim Kishon)