NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

You're the same guy who wondered what the difference was between portraying George Bush as a chimp, and Barak Obama as a monkey, aren't you?

Right, well, I remember how that thread went, I suspect you haven't learned much since then.

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

Cause hes black, and people will instantly assume its racist, cause hes black.

There is a difference between true things and false things?

You're the same guy who wondered what the difference was between portraying George Bush as a chimp, and Barak Obama as a monkey, aren't you?

Right, well, I remember how that thread went, I suspect you haven't learned much since then.

Maybe he just feels lonely and wants to talk?

You're the same guy who wondered what the difference was between portraying George Bush as a chimp, and Barak Obama as a monkey, aren't you?

Right, well, I remember how that thread went, I suspect you haven't learned much since then.

What, so now The New Yorker is a biased redneck hick with a secret racist agenda. Cause that's the last argument you had...

It's not, not really. The difference is that Obama is young and popular, and will therefore have a much larger group of supporters pissed off about this. As compared to Bush, who is really, really hated, so very few people raised the hue and cry.

There is a difference between true things and false things?

:eek: Really?

... Wait, no! you must be lying!! :eek:

It's not, not really. The difference is that Obama is young and popular, and will therefore have a much larger group of supporters pissed off about this. As compared to Bush, who is really, really hated, so very few people raised the hue and cry.

Well thats one way of putting it.

There is a difference between true things and false things?

True things by who's point of view? You think GWB thinks he was playing the lute while America burns, or that he plays second fiddle to the VP? Or you think it's true so it's an accurate portrayal?

The true thing is, the characters opponents say it about them, in both cases.

how is that different?Two cases are comments on a persons behavior, the third is plain defamation.

Two cases are comments on a persons behavior, the third is plain defamation.

Defamation based on what some people view, just as the pictures where based on what some people view about Bush.

I think a little more context is required. Do you have a link to the related article of the Obama picture?

Defamation based on what some people view, just as the pictures where based on what some people view about Bush.


Ya just don't get it, do ya, Hach? Negative comments about Bush, even when logically absurd (He's a Chimp, etc) are witty observations. Negative comments about the Honored Soul are hateful and vile and obviously racist defamations of a saintly character. Don't worry, once he's elected, he'll put a stop to all this Doubleplusungoodthink. Vocal malcontents will be punished like they should be, in order to maintain our freedom of speech. America has been soft on political critics for a long time, and Obama promises CHANGE!

Their argument is satire? I call bullshit. When people are still seriously entertaining the idea that Obama is a terrorist and the conservapundits are still trying to imply that, The New Yorker showing him and his wife as terrorists is not satire, it's reinforcement.
This of course ignores the fact that Bush covers art parodies of Bush based on what he is observed doing where as the Obama cover is based on what people think. If that happens to go over your head, the short version is that the Obama cover and Bush covers are not in the same thread.

Ya just don't get it, do ya, Hach? Negative comments about Bush, even when logically absurd (He's a Chimp, etc) are witty observations. Negative comments about the Honored Soul are hateful and vile and obviously racist defamations of a saintly character. Don't worry, once he's elected, he'll put a stop to all this Doubleplusungoodthink. Vocal malcontents will be punished like they should be, in order to maintain our freedom of speech. America has been soft on political critics for a long time, and Obama promises CHANGE!

I hope your joking?

And the point in change isn't the change itself but the continuity in change and the change in continuity ;) -nods knowingly-

Most mainstream newspapers, from what I've seen, are a load of crap that exists to sell itself.

Defamation based on what some people view, just as the pictures where based on what some people view about Bush.Those pictures of Bush where based on how he acted; Obama doesn't act like a Muslim. If Obama did anything Muslim-y, anything that could even be perceived that way, then perhaps portraying him as such would make a point. But that isn't the case, is it?
On the other hand, Bush was slow on the uptake in the case of natural disaster; and seemed to make decisions according to Cheney's agenda. It's a comment on his behavior. Now, portraying him as a chimp, that would be plain and simple defamation with no basis for it. Not until he started acting like one.

It's satire. Every political figure gets a caricature made that they don't approve of.

If he can't laugh about it, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Those pictures of Bush where based on how he acted; Obama doesn't act like a Muslim. If Obama did anything Muslim-y, anything that could even be perceived that way, then perhaps portraying him as such would make a point. But that isn't the case, is it?
On the other hand, Bush was slow on the uptake in the case of natural disaster; and seemed to make decisions according to Cheney's agenda. It's a comment on his behavior. Now, portraying him as a chimp, that would be plain and simple defamation with no basis for it. Not until he started acting like one.

The reason he was portrayed as a muslim is because some people think hes a muslim, and spread rumours about it.

It's satire. Every political figure gets a caricature made that they don't approve of.

If he can't laugh about it, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Obama doesn't deserve to be President full stop.

It's satire. Every political figure gets a caricature made that they don't approve of.

If he can't laugh about it, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Bullshit. The difference between the Obama cover and the Bush covers is that the Bush covers parody what Bush is doing while the Obama cover is illustrating what people think Obama is, not parodying him or what his opinions are or what he does. Regardless, it comes out to defamation.

The cover was intended to satirize the people demonizing Obama as a freedom-hating secret Muslim, and I think they well deserve mockery. The problem is that that's not immediately clear from the cover itself, which could easily be interpreted as suggesting that burning flags and celebrating bin Ladin is an exaggerated version of Obama's real views. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it can't always replace those words and stand alone. This image would have been a much better fit inside the magazine, next to an article discussing the "secret Muslim" smear campaign, because on the cover, unexplained, it's easy to interpret as a particularly nasty attack on Obama.

Regardless, it comes out to defamation.

No, not really. But I've kinda gotten used to you using legal terms incorrectly...

For those claiming defamation, I suggest you scope NY Times v. Sullivan

What the fuck is happening to irreverence in this country? Can't anybody tell an off-color joke without the whole world going nuts? Between this and Bernie Mac, I am starting to wonder if maybe Obama ought to gather up the election staff for a bit of mutual stick-from-ass removal procedures. *bleah*

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

It is different because you have people who hate bush and the same people love Obama so one is allowed and the other isn't. How they manage any hypocrisy they have is their own problem

The cover was intended to satirize the people demonizing Obama as a freedom-hating secret Muslim, and I think they well deserve mockery. The problem is that that's not immediately clear from the cover itself, which could easily be interpreted as suggesting that burning flags and celebrating bin Ladin is an exaggerated version of Obama's real views. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it can't always replace those words and stand alone. This image would have been a much better fit inside the magazine, next to an article discussing the "secret Muslim" smear campaign, because on the cover, unexplained, it's easy to interpret as a particularly nasty attack on Obama.

I think the big clue that this isn't a mockery of Obama is that he's doing the fist bump with his wife that got called a "terrorist salute", or at least something equally ridiculous. The mainstream mocked that characterization of the gesture, which gives the image of Obama doing it with his wife in the Oval Office while dressed as militants and Muslim a bit more context as mockery of a viewpoint, not a viewpoint itself.

Edit: I didn't even notice the American flag burning in the fireplace, or the picture of Osama hung above it, but on second glance there's no way that's a serious satire of Obama himself.

Most people agree that Cheney wields a lot of power within the Bush administration, and there have certainly been folks who took that further and made fun of him by saying he was Cheney's lapdog (or, in this case, wife).

On the other hand, most people who watch anything other than Fox News pundits agree that Obama is not, nor has ever been, Muslim. To dress him and his wife in the garb of the Middle East and put a gun in her hands as though they were Islamic extremists, is beyond the pale.

The difference is in the emotional response. Effeminizing Bush obviously hasn't affected his power nor how he wields it (unless it's made him MORE unconstitutional). Portraying the Obamas as though they are our enemy in the current conflict can barely even be called parody; it's more accurately libel.

Portraying the Obamas as though they are our enemy in the current conflict can barely even be called parody; it's more accurately libel.

No. It's not libel. It's art. Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody understand what the purpose of art is anymore?

...
and his wife in the garb of the Middle East and put a gun in her hands as though they were Islamic extremists, is beyond the pale.
...

Actually, I was thinking that Mrs. Obama was dressed as a Black Panther Militant, anti-whitey and all that, and not a middle east terrorist... But perhaps you are right about that.

I think the big clue that this isn't a mockery of Obama is that he's doing the fist bump with his wife that got called a "terrorist salute", or at least something equally ridiculous. The mainstream mocked that characterization of the gesture, which gives the image of Obama doing it with his wife in the Oval Office while dressed as militants and Muslim a bit more context as mockery of a viewpoint, not a viewpoint itself.

Oh, indeed, I think it's pretty obvious if you think about it at all - but how many people actually apply any critical thought to what they see on the covers of magazines?

What the fuck is happening to irreverence in this country? Can't anybody tell an off-color joke without the whole world going nuts? Between this and Bernie Mac, I am starting to wonder if maybe Obama ought to gather up the election staff for a bit of mutual stick-from-ass removal procedures. *bleah*

I think that a lot of people think it's ok to be irreverent ONLY if it's towards a Republican candidate. They get their panties in a bunch if it's Obama.

Hell, they aren't even satirizing Obama - they're satirizing people like me.

Isn't that supposed to be funny?

I think that a lot of people think it's ok to be irreverent ONLY if it's towards a Republican candidate. They get their panties in a bunch if it's Obama.

Hell, they aren't even satirizing Obama - they're satirizing people like me.

Isn't that supposed to be funny?

I know I'm amused. :)

I know I'm amused. :)

And look! I don't mind if you laugh! :fluffle:

There is a difference between true things and false things?
That sums it up most succinctly.

The cover was intended to satirize the people demonizing Obama as a freedom-hating secret Muslim, and I think they well deserve mockery. The problem is that that's not immediately clear from the cover itself, which could easily be interpreted as suggesting that burning flags and celebrating bin Ladin is an exaggerated version of Obama's real views. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it can't always replace those words and stand alone. This image would have been a much better fit inside the magazine, next to an article discussing the "secret Muslim" smear campaign, because on the cover, unexplained, it's easy to interpret as a particularly nasty attack on Obama.
This, too. (Well, not quite as succinctly but, at one sentence, that would be hard. :p)

Seriously? Seriously?
News flash-NOBODY WITH A BRAIN THINKS OBAMA IS A TERRORIST. This isn't "reinforcement", or libel, or defamation. Anybody who actually thinks Obama is a terrorist won't be swayed be any newspaper cover, cus they already think he is. And all the people who are saying "Oh, its terrible!" are all going to be voting for him anyway, and therefore have no sense of humor about him but will gladly trash McCain.

Hypocritical much?

God forbid anybody should insult the democratic party. No, everything wrong is the Republicans fault, and therefore they must be exclusively insulted.

Pathetic.

And before people jump all over my ass saying how I must think Obama is a terrorist, or I must be a hardcore neo-con, the answer to both is "no". I'm just not a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong with insulting Obama the same way Bush has been insulted.

/snip

I see nothing wrong with insulting Obama the same way Bush has been insulted.

^ This

If your panties are in a twist over a magazine cover, you really need to get a life and grow a sense of humor and perspective.

No. It's not libel. It's art. Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody understand what the purpose of art is anymore?

No, much like 'freedom' ,'democracy' and 'talk radio' its become a rancid cypher for something more ugly, with some folk.....

And before people jump all over my ass saying how I must think Obama is a terrorist, or I must be a hardcore neo-con, the answer to both is "no". I'm just not a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong with insulting Obama the same way Bush has been insulted.

And on top of that, the cartoon isn't insulting Obama, it's mocking the crazy conspiracy theories which have sprung up about him and Michelle.

I personally think it's a hilarious cover -- though that's probably because "terrorist fist jab?" has become a running joke among my friends -- and I think it's very clever on The New Yorker's part. Any regular reader of the magazine will get the joke, and the picture is arresting enough that someone might pick it up at the newsstand just to figure out what it's about.

I suppose the cartoon is a bit risky, given that so many people these days have so little critical faculty, but this is a magazine that once ran Easter-season cover art of a bunny in a business suit crucified on a tax-return form. The current one's pretty tame by their standards.

Wow -- lots to respond to on this one. Who'd have thought that satire would get misinterpreted in a land where the major national education policy is geared toward standardized tests?

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

Well, all three covers seem to me to be reductions to absurdity of the popular perception of aspects of four peoples' personalities, statements, agendas, what have you. The artist has taken what he thinks, what he has read/seen/heard and his own knowledge of metaphor and fused them into caricatures of those aspects. In short, he's done his job as a political cartoonist, and, judging by the many agitated responses, he's done his job very well. The artist is to be praised for that, at least.

Ya just don't get it, do ya, Hach? Negative comments about Bush, even when logically absurd (He's a Chimp, etc) are witty observations. Negative comments about the Honored Soul are hateful and vile and obviously racist defamations of a saintly character. Don't worry, once he's elected, he'll put a stop to all this Doubleplusungoodthink. Vocal malcontents will be punished like they should be, in order to maintain our freedom of speech. America has been soft on political critics for a long time, and Obama promises CHANGE!

How is this any different from the treatment Bush received from the media until it became clear he was in lame duck territory? Or have you forgotten the media softballs lobbed at him from the election cycle of 2000 until about 2006? Of course supporters of particular politicians are going to defend them from perceived attacks, even if those attacks have basis in reality. Demanding that people shouldn't critically assess a politician is naïve and un-American. Expecting people not to take exception to critical assessment of someone they support, whether it's fair or not, is just plain naïve.

It's satire. Every political figure gets a caricature made that they don't approve of.

If he can't laugh about it, he doesn't deserve to be President.

I am pleasantly surprised to be agreeing with Hotwife, but: THIS^!

Obama doesn't deserve to be President full stop.

Right. That's why he won the primary. :rolleyes:

It seems to me that if you make it through that -- against the Clinton machine, no less, then you certainly deserve a shot. The general election will determine if he deserves the office, not you. And thank Heaven for that.

Bullshit. The difference between the Obama cover and the Bush covers is that the Bush covers parody what Bush is doing while the Obama cover is illustrating what people think Obama is, not parodying him or what his opinions are or what he does. Regardless, it comes out to defamation.

You had me until "defamation". You separated the known from the perceived nicely, but you must realize that Obama doesn't have the length record of decisions to parody. Therefore, the parody had to be based on what little he's known for now. It's only unequal because of the disparity between the men's political histories. Why would he parody Obama's limited Senate record or his work in Illinois, when it's a virtual unknown? Few would know to laugh, and many of them not in New York...and this is the New Yorker. It isn't defamation to use whatever is already out there are fodder for satire, regardless of its palatability. The guy has to draw something.

It is different because you have people who hate bush and the same people love Obama so one is allowed and the other isn't. How they manage any hypocrisy they have is their own problem

Sez you. I hear, read and see plenty of satire and mudslinging on Obama. Or is the fact that many people refer to him exclusively using his middle name something I made up in my head (for one example -- demonizing the fist-bump, and thereby castigating many thousands of frat-boys in the process is another).

No. It's not libel. It's art. Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody understand what the purpose of art is anymore?

The sweet, mud-lovin' voice of reason. Bless you, LG.

And no, not really, they don't. Not anymore. This despite the fact that this very thread is evidence that the art in question has done its job. No, people would rather focus on whether or not such caricatures are "fair", and what agenda the artist is promoting. Never mind the actual art and the discussions it's actually meant to provoke.

Oh, indeed, I think it's pretty obvious if you think about it at all - but how many people actually apply any critical thought to what they see on the covers of magazines?

WE HAVE A WINNAAAH! Well said.

I think that a lot of people think it's ok to be irreverent ONLY if it's towards a Republican candidate. They get their panties in a bunch if it's Obama.

Hell, they aren't even satirizing Obama - they're satirizing people like me.

Isn't that supposed to be funny?

Absolutely! The only way it's not funny is if, by some miracle, someone like you looked at the Obama cover and said, "gee, that is kinda ridiculous to accuse someone of treason-like acts who has directly benefitted from the security and opportunity afforded all modern Americans. Perhaps it's wrong to demonize someone as anti-American just for having different views than I do."

I won't hold my breath.

Similarly, the Bush covers made me aware that there's no way Bush is actually playing the lyre (that is a lyre, not a lute -- a lute has a round, wooden body and a short, guitar-like neck...sorry, music geek) while America goes down the shitter. The man has his political views, advisors, and agenda, and he's not going to throw the whole mess into reverse for the sake of those who disagree with him. I think anti-Bush folks take their attacks too far sometimes, too, but those are the slings and arrows one accepts when one runs for and wins the White House. With great power comes a whole range of shit nobody can prepare you for -- much of it unpleasant, unfair and untenable. Your job is to make of it what you can. If you got elected on charm and very little else, you're eventually going to look ineffectual no matter who you are. Hell, if Obama's elected, it could happen to him, too. Obama could be the next Carter, and that's disconcerting. But I can guarantee you, just as Bush didn't say "I think I'll run for President and if I win, act like a buffoon, botch the response to a few regional tragedies, listen to my hawkish advisors and start a war, and watch the economy tank", Obama isn't saying "I want to be the next Carter". To borrow a phrase, a Presidency seems to be what happens while the Occupant is making other plans.

Somewhere between a wind-sock and a blinkered bull in a china shop is where a President should try to live. That's a lot of real estate. You could multiply the salary by 50 and offer blowjobs on demand from anyone I wanted, and I still would not take that job.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg


i love both of these covers. they are both very funny. i dont see any reason to get more pissed over one than the other. i especially love how the artist got michelle obama's facial expression right.

that doesnt say anything about the content of the articles related to the covers since i havent read the magazines.

I think a little more context is required. Do you have a link to the related article of the Obama picture?

New Yorker cover art does not refer to a story in the magazine. There is no context for the cover art except for the known intelligence and sensibilities of the New Yorker, the highest quality periodical in the United States.

The cover didn't go 'to far,' because it quite simply didn't go anywhere at all.

No one with an even passing familiarity with the New Yorker would take it to be even a vague suggestion that it's writers and editors believe Obama is a Muslim or his wife a militant.

...
(that is a lyre, not a lute -- a lute has a round, wooden body and a short, guitar-like neck...sorry, music geek) ....

Aaachk! Damnit, I knew it started with a "L" lol

God forbid anybody should insult the democratic party. No, everything wrong is the Republicans fault, and therefore they must be exclusively insulted.

Well, when you have the White House and both houses of Regress for how long...? Seriously, though, the Republicans have had most of the limelight for the past eight years. Who else was to be insulted, the Libertarians? That was taken care of with the Ron Paul candidacy (and yes, I know he ran as a Republican, but come on). Besides, you need listen to only a minute or two of FOX, Rush, Hannity, Larson, Beck, Drudge, and on and on to get your fix of Democrat party bashing, even when the Republicans were in control of everything. Sorry, your claim here is not borne out by reality.

And on top of that, the cartoon isn't insulting Obama, it's mocking the crazy conspiracy theories which have sprung up about him and Michelle.

I personally think it's a hilarious cover -- though that's probably because "terrorist fist jab?" has become a running joke among my friends -- and I think it's very clever on The New Yorker's part. Any regular reader of the magazine will get the joke, and the picture is arresting enough that someone might pick it up at the newsstand just to figure out what it's about.

Agreed.

I suppose the cartoon is a bit risky, given that so many people these days have so little critical faculty, but this is a magazine that once ran Easter-season cover art of a bunny in a business suit crucified on a tax-return form. The current one's pretty tame by their standards.

That was ballsy as hell. He got April 15th (yearly US tax return deadline), Easter and the economy all in one 'toon. That cover dropped even my jaw, and that takes some doing.

Aaachk! Damnit, I knew it started with a "L" lol

Hey, don't sweat it. You could have said it was a bassoon or something.

And a lute would have been cool, 'cause it would have suggested that A) someone from the New Yorker doesn't know his stuff, or B) they think Bush has TIME TRAVEL POWERS and had stopped by the Renaissance on his way to ancient Rome!

(that is a lyre, not a lute -- a lute has a round, wooden body and a short, guitar-like neck...sorry, music geek)

Hee. I almost posted that, too, and then decided I could avoid off-topicness and let it go this once. You win the "Bigger Musical Pedant Than Poliwanacraca" award for the day. :D

Never mind the actual art and the discussions it's actually meant to provoke.


Eh, been there, done that. "Hey, look, I've exaggerated the characteristics of someone or something!" As though we haven't discussed the silly people that think of Obama that way.

Stumble Upon just stumbled me this interview with the editor of the New Yorker (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html).

Hee. I almost posted that, too, and then decided I could avoid off-topicness and let it go this once. You win the "Bigger Musical Pedant Than Poliwanacraca" award for the day. :D

And for a lifetime, I hope. It's kinda my job!

Eh, been there, done that. "Hey, look, I've exaggerated the characteristics of someone or something!" As though we haven't discussed the silly people that think of Obama that way.

Uh...wha? That's the job of parody, isn't it? It's a visual distillation of that discussion.

No, it's cool.

But I would be outraged when they would display Bush as a smart president.

Well, when you have the White House and both houses of Regress for how long...? Seriously, though, the Republicans have had most of the limelight for the past eight years. Who else was to be insulted, the Libertarians? That was taken care of with the Ron Paul candidacy (and yes, I know he ran as a Republican, but come on). Besides, you need listen to only a minute or two of FOX, Rush, Hannity, Larson, Beck, Drudge, and on and on to get your fix of Democrat party bashing, even when the Republicans were in control of everything. Sorry, your claim here is not borne out by reality.


Way to selectively pick a line from my post and use it without any context whatsoever. I used that to point out how everybody thought it was ok when Bush got smashed on the cover, but it was such a faux pas when it was a democrat being "insulted".

And please. I am hardly a supporter of the current president or congress (which, by the way, is democratically led, and has been for almost two years...during which they have done, well, nothing really productive).

And as for the FOX comment, I watch FOX when I want to know what democrats are doing and CNN to know what republicans are doing. I find it a good balance. But if I want something more objective, I read the newspaper.

And for a lifetime, I hope. It's kinda my job!


Well, maybe not quite a lifetime, since I rather expect to end up teaching music for a living myself, but you've probably got a few more years before I quit daydreaming about fame and fortune and settle down to making teenagers sing Palestrina. ;)

New Yorker cover art does not refer to a story in the magazine. There is no context for the cover art except for the known intelligence and sensibilities of the New Yorker, the highest quality periodical in the United States.

The cover didn't go 'to far,' because it quite simply didn't go anywhere at all.

No one with an even passing familiarity with the New Yorker would take it to be even a vague suggestion that it's writers and editors believe Obama is a Muslim or his wife a militant.

If this is the case, then the hypocrisy by many people in this thread is pretty lame, treating one petty but humorous piece of satire as more morally legitimate than another.

Way to selectively pick a line from my post and use it without any context whatsoever. I used that to point out how everybody thought it was ok when Bush got smashed on the cover, but it was such a faux pas when it was a democrat being "insulted".

Relax. Your post is on the same page. I don't use *snip* when that's the case.

I disagree. "Everyone" didn't think it was OK, and I haven't really read too many who have taken the Obama cover at face value. I think you're seeing what you want to see. Not a character flaw, we all do it. The good thing is knowing when we're doing it.

And please. I am hardly a supporter of the current president or congress (which, by the way, is democratically led, and has been for almost two years...during which they have done, well, nothing really productive).

*sigh*

Which is why I said "in control for how long...?" As in not the whole time, but for something like 3/4 of it? I wasn't sure exactly how long the Republicans had both elected branches, and didn't want to look it up. NOW who's posting selectively. See what I did there?

And as for the FOX comment, I watch FOX when I want to know what democrats are doing and CNN to know what republicans are doing. I find it a good balance. But if I want something more objective, I read the newspaper.

Excellent idea. More sources are always better than fewer. So you admit, then, that there's no disparity in criticisms/portrayals of both parties. Good. That makes me wonder why you said "exclusively insulted" when it comes to Republicans, but never mind.

If this is the case, then the hypocrisy by many people in this thread is pretty lame, treating one petty but humorous piece of satire as more morally legitimate than another.

^*Standing ovation*^

Well, maybe not quite a lifetime, since I rather expect to end up teaching music for a living myself, but you've probably got a few more years before I quit daydreaming about fame and fortune and settle down to making teenagers sing Palestrina. ;)

EXCELLENT! Consider Gabrieli and Monteverdi, too. All superior Renaissance composers (with the latter being a bridge to the Baroque). Best of luck, and welcome to the club!

This one actually does (see the link I just posted above) - it belongs to their main article called "The Politics of Fear". Which of course would immediately have preempted any possible misconceptions if seen together with the picture.

No, the picture is called "The Politics of Fear". The link you posted specifically mentions that the picture has no article matching it in the issue.

No, the picture is called "The Politics of Fear". The link you posted specifically mentions that the picture has no article matching it in the issue.
Ack. I'll just go and die now, thanks...

Uh...wha? That's the job of parody, isn't it? It's a visual distillation of that discussion.

You said it was meant to -provoke- the discussion. There isn't really much -to- mind about the art.

Relax. Your post is on the same page. I don't use *snip* when that's the case. [QUOTE]

Sorry if I came off as angry :( I wasn't trying to.

[QUOTE]I disagree. "Everyone" didn't think it was OK, and I haven't really read too many who have taken the Obama cover at face value. I think you're seeing what you want to see. Not a character flaw, we all do it. The good thing is knowing when we're doing it.

Cummon now. You've read the past couple pages of this thread. How many more people are saying how offensive this cover is than are saying it's just satire?

And of course not everyone. It was hyperbole :p


*sigh*

Which is why I said "in control for how long...?" As in not the whole time, but for something like 3/4 of it? I wasn't sure exactly how long the Republicans had both elected branches, and didn't want to look it up. NOW who's posting selectively. See what I did there?

Well, no, you actually did say they have had the limelight for eight years. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to defend the colosal screwups of the first six years. I'm just in favor of equal-opportunity insulting.


Excellent idea. More sources are always better than fewer. So you admit, then, that there's no disparity in criticisms/portrayals of both parties. Good. That makes me wonder why you said "exclusively insulted" when it comes to Republicans, but never mind.

This is true, and I apologize for portraying the wrong image...but i was refering to something like Hydesland said. The hypocrisy of people saying that it was ok to insult Bush, but not ok to insult Obama, is what I meant.

And we both know that on NSG, you are far less likely to recieve criticism for insulting a republican than a democrat.

EXCELLENT! Consider Gabrieli and Monteverdi, too. All superior Renaissance composers (with the latter being a bridge to the Baroque). Best of luck, and welcome to the club!

I'm already a fan of both Gabrieli and Monteverdi, so assuming that whole "fame and fortune" thing doesn't pan out, I have no doubt I'll inflict them on my future students as well. :)

Most mainstream newspapers, from what I've seen, are a load of crap that exists to sell itself.

I know a lot of people feel this way, and it's true that most newspapers are supported (like so many other industries) by advertising. But as a practicing journalist, I assure you that what I write is specifically NOT influenced by a desire to please advertisers -- and I've alienated a few. And of course, as my work product, I tend to think it's not crap.

How about this art then?

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/article...al_service.html (http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html)
"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Note that he says "security force". A "security force" is an armed force. Sounds like the SS to me... I guess it's coming out now that the Democrats don't believe that they can really trust the military, and that they need their own politically loyal adjunct to the military (just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded).

http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/ObamaYouth2.jpge

No. It's not libel. It's art. Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody understand what the purpose of art is anymore?

li·bel
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

I'm one of the hugest fans of free speech in all its forms, and I'm certain The New Yorker ran this by their lawyers, who decreed it not to be libel, or at least to be on the fuzzy edge. I'm also pretty sure that the Obama campaign won't sue, because that will create more of a fuss than there is already. However, the courts have also decided that not all pictures are art; some really are libelous. And as this thread suggests, there are a lot of people out there who believe this particular drawing defames Obama's character.

Ack. I'll just go and die now, thanks...

Please don't! :fluffle:

I'd have gone through a litter of kittens' lives if I died every time I screwed up an assertion here. You're far too valuable.

You said it was meant to -provoke- the discussion. There isn't really much -to- mind about the art.

YOU, on the other hand...:mad:

Kidding! Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Elaborate please? Are you taking the art itself to task? I thought it was very good both as commentary and as caricature.

Sorry if I came off as angry :( I wasn't trying to.

No worries. :) See?

Cummon now. You've read the past couple pages of this thread. How many more people are saying how offensive this cover is than are saying it's just satire?

And of course not everyone. It was hyperbole :p

Honestly, only two or three. Most have been talking about how the Obama cover satirized the perceptions about Obama, not Obama himself. I don't see a groundswell of "zOMG, tehy think Obama iz deh eBil muzzlym!"

Well, no, you actually did say they have had the limelight for eight years. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to defend the colosal screwups of the first six years. I'm just in favor of equal-opportunity insulting.

"Limelight" and "control" are two different things.

This is true, and I apologize for portraying the wrong image...but i was refering to something like Hydesland said. The hypocrisy of people saying that it was ok to insult Bush, but not ok to insult Obama, is what I meant.

And we both know that on NSG, you are far less likely to recieve criticism for insulting a republican than a democrat.

That last is fairly true. The problem seems to be that the concentration of troll-like posts seem to be the ones that skewer liberals. There are certainly liberal trolls (Dragontide comes to mind) and those who are less than thorough in their examinations/criticisms of Republican politics, but honestly, I've met more Right troglodytes than Left ones here. I'd love to get into an honest, flame-free, hyperbole-free exchange on issues that are polarized, but I'd also like to play strong safety for the Seahawks, so you can see the likelihood.

And you needn't apologize. I hope you express exactly what you believe. NSG has helped shape my perceptions through corrections of my own misperceptions or at least thoughtful critique on some of my ideas. The more of a straight-shooter you are here, the more benefit you'll derive from posting here from those who are also thoughtful posters. Those aren't the majority, but there are many (I listed a few earlier, by no means an exhaustive list).

Ooh, snappy uniforms!

Ooh, snappy uniforms!

We can sign you up right here...

**hands out snappy uniform**

If this is the case, then the hypocrisy by many people in this thread is pretty lame, treating one petty but humorous piece of satire as more morally legitimate than another.
I guess it depends what definition of "satire" you want to use.

It isn't this: "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit."
What vice or folly is being attacked? Obama being a Muslim terrorist? Well he isn't so it can't be that.

It can't be this either: "A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous."
If it was that, why would it be depicting Obama as a Muslim terrorist? Maybe he thinks that idea ridiculous, but the cover doesn't mock that idea, it reflects it. If you have to explain it, it isn't witty.


What definition of satire does depicting the Obamas as Muslims and terrorists meet?

EDIT:
How about this art then?

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/article...al_service.html (http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html)


Note that he says "security force". A "security force" is an armed force. Sounds like the SS to me... I guess it's coming out now that the Democrats don't believe that they can really trust the military, and that they need their own politically loyal adjunct to the military (just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded).

http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/ObamaYouth2.jpge

THAT is satire.

li·bel
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

I'm one of the hugest fans of free speech in all its forms, and I'm certain The New Yorker ran this by their lawyers, who decreed it not to be libel, or at least to be on the fuzzy edge. I'm also pretty sure that the Obama campaign won't sue, because that will create more of a fuss than there is already. However, the courts have also decided that not all pictures are art; some really are libelous. And as this thread suggests, there are a lot of people out there who believe this particular drawing defames Obama's character.

Nicely said, but you've effectively held up what LG said. It isn't libel just because someone thinks it is. The Obama cover is not even close. Again, it doesn't target Obama at all, but his detractors.

YOU, on the other hand...:mad:

Kidding! Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Elaborate please? Are you taking the art itself to task? I thought it was very good both as commentary and as caricature.

Ha. :p I just don't think you can take the people here to task for not 'understanding/appreciating the art' When, well, I've personally seen posters here make the same characterization a good half-dozen times. It doesn't really bring any higher perspective to anyone here.

How about this art then?

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/article...al_service.html (http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html)


Note that he says "security force". A "security force" is an armed force. Sounds like the SS to me... I guess it's coming out now that the Democrats don't believe that they can really trust the military, and that they need their own politically loyal adjunct to the military (just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded).

http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/ObamaYouth2.jpge

So, you managed to go from that quote to "Obama is the next Hitler."

Wow. It's like you have that D&D Monk ability that allows you to jump as far as you want, only it applies to conclusions.
Bonus points for whoever names the comic that I took that from.

THAT is satire.

OOooh! I got something right!

Nicely said, but you've effectively held up what LG said. It isn't libel just because someone thinks it is. The Obama cover is not even close. Again, it doesn't target Obama at all, but his detractors.

Hardly. If you have to explain that it is an attack on his detractors instead of Obama, then it isn't.

So, you managed to go from that quote to "Obama is the next Hitler."

Wow. It's like you have that D&D Monk ability that allows you to jump as far as you want, only it applies to conclusions.
Bonus points for whoever names the comic that I took that from.

Order of the Stick.

So, you managed to go from that quote to "Obama is the next Hitler."

Wow. It's like you have that D&D Monk ability that allows you to jump as far as you want, only it applies to conclusions.
Bonus points for whoever names the comic that I took that from.

Name a famous figure in history who created an armed civilian counterpart to the regular military.

Plus, this thread needed to be Godwinned.

It can't be this either: "A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous."
If it was that, why would it be depicting Obama as a Muslim terrorist?

Because the author thinks that idea is ridiculous perhaps? I don't see the problem.


Maybe he thinks that idea ridiculous, but the cover doesn't mock that idea

Of course it does. It made me laugh, it's exactly the same as when a trillion people on this board always say "teh 3b1l m0slems", but in this case it's actually funny.

Name a famous figure in history who created an armed civilian counterpart to the regular military.
Does the entire US government count? Militias.

I'm already a fan of both Gabrieli and Monteverdi, so assuming that whole "fame and fortune" thing doesn't pan out, I have no doubt I'll inflict them on my future students as well. :)

Ah, but show them a literal translation of Monteverdi's Si chi'io vorrei morire, and they'll not feel inflicted, they'll feel subversive. And in Italian, no less!

I guess it depends what definition of "satire" you want to use.

It isn't this: "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit."
What vice or folly is being attacked? Obama being a Muslim terrorist? Well he isn't so it can't be that.

It can't be this either: "A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous."
If it was that, why would it be depicting Obama as a Muslim terrorist? Maybe he thinks that idea ridiculous, but the cover doesn't mock that idea, it reflects it. If you have to explain it, it isn't witty.


What definition of satire does depicting the Obamas as Muslims and terrorists meet?

Uh...quite clearly the bolded one? Substitute "artist" for "author" -- not really much of a jump, is it? And it does mock the idea by presenting it in a ridiculous context, just as Obama's detractors have been fed it.

The image needs no explanation to anyone who looks for longer thana couple of seconds.

Because the author thinks that idea is ridiculous perhaps? I don't see the problem.
Addressed. If you have to explain it, you are either tossing out bullshit because you don't want to look like a douchebag (but you did mean it how it seemed) or you did it wrong.


Uh...quite clearly the bolded one? Substitute "artist" for "author" -- not really much of a jump, is it? And it does mock the idea by presenting it in a ridiculous context, just as Obama's detractors have been fed it.
Maybe you people should read the part where I address the god damn definition in relation to the piece.

The image needs no explanation to anyone who looks for longer thana couple of seconds.
Really? Is there a small picture of a stereotypical redneck in the bottom left corner and all this is in a thought bubble coming off of his head that I just didn't see?

Does the entire US government count? Militias.

We don't have them in equal power and armament to the US Military. Never have.

Try again.

Hardly. If you have to explain that it is an attack on his detractors instead of Obama, then it isn't.

I didn't need it explained. So it is. Try again?

Addressed. If you have to explain it, you are either tossing out bullshit because you don't want to look like a douchebag (but you did mean it how it seemed) or you did it wrong.

Where are you getting this from? Who said anyone had to explain it? No one had to explain it to me.

Addressed. If you have to explain it, you are either tossing out bullshit because you don't want to look like a douchebag (but you did mean it how it seemed) or you did it wrong.


Maybe you people should read the part where I address the god damn definition in relation to the piece.

Wow, now you're just TRYING to be offended. I thought better of you.

If anyone who raised stink read the corresponding article, instead of just looking at the pictures, they would see that it is actually an attack upon those who say that Barack is a secret Muslim, not a affirmation of such.

I will admit that it was done in poor taste, but the cartoon is taken out of context by those who are looking for something to get mad about.

I guess it depends what definition of "satire" you want to use.

It isn't this: "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit."
What vice or folly is being attacked? Obama being a Muslim terrorist? Well he isn't so it can't be that. /snip


After reading the David Remnick piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html) and the other comments here, I'd say the argument is that the human vice or folly being attacked is the public's willingness to *believe* that Obama is a Muslim terrorist despite all the evidence to the contrary.

How about this art then?

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/article...al_service.html (http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html)


Note that he says "security force". A "security force" is an armed force. Sounds like the SS to me... I guess it's coming out now that the Democrats don't believe that they can really trust the military, and that they need their own politically loyal adjunct to the military (just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded).

http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/ObamaYouth2.jpge

whats the point of the pic? it doesnt occur in the aarp article.

were you just looking for an opportunity to post an outrageous graphic?

whats the point of the pic? it doesnt occur in the aarp article.

were you just looking for an opportunity to post an outrageous graphic?

Yet another NSG poster who can't appreciate satire.

Yet another NSG poster who can't appreciate satire.

Not quite. It seems that this person questions linking the two items, not the satire value of the second item. I thought it was funny, myself.

Ah, but show them a literal translation of Monteverdi's Si chi'io vorrei morire, and they'll not feel inflicted, they'll feel subversive. And in Italian, no less!

Hehe, definitely, although I slightly prefer the subtlety (well, sorta) of Arcadelt's "Il bianco e dolce cigno." I'm pretty sure any teenager would feel pleased as punch that their parents don't know what sort of death they so desperately wanted to die "a thousand times a day." :p

Not quite. It seems that this person questions linking the two items, not the satire value of the second item. I thought it was funny, myself.

Obama wants a "security force" (which implies an armed force) equal in power to the US military, but under his control. Sounds like the SS to me.

Yet another NSG poster who can't appreciate satire.

no i dont appreciate you implying that AARP would publish such an outrageous graphic.

and they didnt. YOU did.

After reading the David Remnick piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html) and the other comments here, I'd say the argument is that the human vice or folly being attacked is the public's willingness to *believe* that Obama is a Muslim terrorist despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Which if you have to explain that, you are either doing it wrong, or you meant what people perceived and are tossing out bullshit to cover that fact.

We don't have them in equal power and armament to the US Military. Never have.

Try again.
Yes we did. Back at the beginning of the nation. Go again.

no i dont appreciate you implying that AARP would publish such an outrageous graphic.

and they didnt. YOU did.
I didn't imply that they did, and only someone with severe brain damage would think that AARP published the image.

Yes we did. Back at the beginning of the nation. Go again.

They very quickly (post Valley Forge) became a regular army. Militias from then on were rudimentary and less well-equipped and armed.

Which if you have to explain that, you are either doing it wrong, or you meant what people perceived and are tossing out bullshit to cover that fact.

Wait a minute -- so every time anyone needs ANYthing explained to them, it fails? Double bullshit, and an argument for the lowest common denominator.

I didn't imply that they did, and only someone with severe brain damage would think that AARP published the image.

uhuh.

Obama wants a "security force" (which implies an armed force) equal in power to the US military, but under his control. Sounds like the SS to me.

Or a gross misinterpretation, but whatever.

Or a gross misinterpretation, but whatever.

The point is, the image is satirical. And it seems that some people knee-jerk their reaction to satire, especially if it's about someone they hold sacred.

The point is, the image is satirical. And it seems that some people knee-jerk their reaction to satire, especially if it's about someone they hold sacred.

And this is surprising? Do you know that the Buddy Christ from Dogma pissed a lot of people off? How about the "goin' to hell" scene in the South Park movie that featured Gandhi alongside Hitler? Of course people who love or admire the target of satire are going to be upset.

And this is surprising? Do you know that the Buddy Christ from Dogma pissed a lot of people off? How about the "goin' to hell" scene in the South Park movie that featured Gandhi alongside Hitler? Of course people who love or admire the target of satire are going to be upset.

They need to get a life.

They need to get a life.

Because...admiring Jesus isn't part of a life, or what?

Yet another NSG poster who can't appreciate satire.

Except when its about Bushie.

They love those pics with the hitler 'stache on W, can't get enough of 'em.:rolleyes:

Except when its about Bushie.

They love those pics with the hitler 'stache on W, can't get enough of 'em.:rolleyes:

And you, really; who are you and which posters, in particular, are you referring to?

Except when its about Bushie.

They love those pics with the hitler 'stache on W, can't get enough of 'em.:rolleyes:

I personally find comparing Bush to Hitler distasteful.

Especially since Hitler took a Germany crippled by both the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression, rebuilding its economy and turned it into a formidable military machine that effectively ended the Depression when the world was dragged into stopping the Third Reich.

As for Bush, well it's in reverse.

Because...admiring Jesus isn't part of a life, or what?

Being outraged at satirical art work of any kind is a sign of low intelligence.

Pretty soon, the next satirical art about Obama will instill in Democrats the same kind of pillaging and rioting and burning we saw when the Danish Muhammed cartoons were published....

Being outraged at satirical art work of any kind is a sign of low intelligence.

Pretty soon, the next satirical art about Obama will instill in Democrats the same kind of pillaging and rioting and burning we saw when the Danish Muhammed cartoons were published....

Ignoring various, uh, implications there: Are we supposed to be, I dunno, surprised that there are people of low intelligence?

Ignoring various, uh, implications there: Are we supposed to be, I dunno, surprised that there are people of low intelligence?

Like the fictional parents of Lake Wobegon, who believe that all of their children are "above average", you won't get any Democrats to say that some of their ranks are of low intelligence. They will point out that all Republicans are of low intelligence, and that no Democrats would be so stupid.

BTW, how's the uniform fit?

The New Yorker costs $4.50? Fuck that.

The New Yorker costs $4.50? Fuck that.

That's why everyone should subscribe, because then it's only 85¢ an issue. Get yours today!

I think it's funny. The Obama campaign needs to lighten up.

Does the entire US government count? Militias.

Militias have evolved into the National Guard. I know, cus I am in the National Guard (1/111, 28 Infantry Division), and we trace our descent directly to a militia formed (by Ben Franklin, no less) to defend Philadelphia against British warships going up the Delaware River.
Regardless, anybody who thinks there is an active citizen militia is fooling themselves. ARNG is all thats left of that.

They very quickly (post Valley Forge) became a regular army. Militias from then on were rudimentary and less well-equipped and armed.

Not true at all. Up until the World War Two, having any large numbers of full-time soldiers was frowned upon in the U.S. Rather, the U.S. military would be a small, professional core who would supplement the massive militia levees that were raised in crisis. Take, for example, the Civil War. You hear stories about the 54th Mass, 20th Maine, etc. All of those are, by todays standards, National Guard, units which were raised locally to aid in the common defense.
Anyway, the point I am making is that your statements were wrong.

And as for Obama making an SS? I don't like the guy, but I don't think he is anything like Hitler, either, and congress would never pass that. Moreover, why would a president not trust the U.S. military? We are a rare country due to the fact that there has never been a military coup against the government. Not many nations can say that.

Militias have evolved into the National Guard. I know, cus I am in the National Guard (1/111, 28 Infantry Division), and we trace our descent directly to a militia formed (by Ben Franklin, no less) to defend Philadelphia against British warships going up the Delaware River.
Regardless, anybody who thinks there is an active citizen militia is fooling themselves. ARNG is all thats left of that.

According to the Supreme Court (from some time ago) the National Guard is NOT the militia.

How about this art then?

Not sure what you mean by posting it. It's satire, sure, although in this case it's satirizing Obama rather than his critics. It's not particularly good satire: it gets major rhetorical points deducted for the Hitler reference, and that saps its humor potential. Also, the art is sort of "My First Photoshop" bleah, though it gets bonus points for trying to mimic actual Nazi posters. It's not the worst attempt at satire I've ever seen on this board, just kind of mediocre.

Is that the sort of answer you were looking for?

Note that he says "security force". A "security force" is an armed force. Sounds like the SS to me... I guess it's coming out now that the Democrats don't believe that they can really trust the military, and that they need their own politically loyal adjunct to the military (just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded).

Wow, you jumped all the way over the National Guard and the Posse Comitatus Act on your way to that conclusion. A leap of blind faith, or a blind leap of faith, perhaps? Impressive.

Ack. I'll just go and die now, thanks...

no need for embarrassment. the issue has an excellent political biography of obama that i never would have found if you hadnt posted that link.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Wow, you jumped all the way over the National Guard and the Posse Comitatus Act on your way to that conclusion. A leap of blind faith, or a blind leap of faith, perhaps? Impressive.

Obama is the one proposing a national security force equal in size and power to the US Military.

I'm not the one making the leap - he is.

And you, really; who are you and which posters, in particular, are you referring to?

Heikuko or whatever his name is for one. And just because I do not have a one thousand post count does not disqualify my opinion.

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

Isn't the New Yorker supposed to be controversial?

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Sorry for the belatedness on this nitpick, but that isn't "Bush being a servant boy" at all. That's Bush being Felix from The Odd Couple (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/144155~The-Odd-Couple-Posters.jpg). (Check out the towel-apron and the duster on the poster.)

Another good example of how you can misinterpret the meaning if you miss the reference. One of the dangers of satire.

Another good example of how you can misinterpret the meaning if you miss the reference. One of the dangers of satire.

Satire requires a minimum amount of intelligence to grasp for what it really is. Otherwise the Obamas cover turns into "Fuck Yeah, We Knew They Were Goddamned Mozlems!"

It's like trying to satirize racists, sexists, or whateverists by outdoing them over the top. The fine print is lost under the big bold letters. There's the inherent danger of unintentionally or deliberately reinforcing existing stereotypes while making a satire.

Meh. It's the New Yorker. And, in the realm of political cartoons, it's certainly not outrageous.

Do I think some people will take it and try to use it as if it portrayed some sort of "truth"? Yes, probably. But I think most people will see it for what it is.

Meh. It's the New Yorker. And, in the realm of political cartoons, it's certainly not outrageous.

Do I think some people will take it and try to use it as if it portrayed some sort of "truth"? Yes, probably. But I think most people will see it for what it is.

Evidently the Obama campaign can't see it for what it is.

Evidently the Obama campaign can't see it for what it is.

No, I think they do, but they're worried that other people won't.

The New Yorker costs $4.50? Fuck that.

Well spotted. :)

li·bel
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

I'm one of the hugest fans of free speech in all its forms, and I'm certain The New Yorker ran this by their lawyers, who decreed it not to be libel, or at least to be on the fuzzy edge. I'm also pretty sure that the Obama campaign won't sue, because that will create more of a fuss than there is already. However, the courts have also decided that not all pictures are art; some really are libelous. And as this thread suggests, there are a lot of people out there who believe this particular drawing defames Obama's character.

That's because a lot of people focus on the words 'malicious' and 'injury' that pop up in definitions of 'libel' and 'defamation' and assume that it means injurious to their cause and perceptions and don't consider the intentions of the source and the feelings of the recipient.

Or in simpler sillier language: Some people are so uptight that when they fart, only dogs can hear it. *nod*

last I saw obama wife, she had straight hair,not a 'fro

ALL the New Yorker covers are stupid

No, I think they do, but they're worried that other people won't.

People who already had no intention of voting for Obama?

Well spotted. :)

That isn't what this thread is about? :confused:

That isn't what this thread is about? :confused:

It'd be a more compelling topic. *nod*

Yeah, I hated these pictures. But the people said it was typical of the New Yorker to post something like that.

I found it to be hilarious. The flag burning in the fireplace and the fist jab were the crowning points for me. It makes me sad that people are really insulted by this kind of thing. Not amused I can understand, but insulted?

If Canadians attempted something similar, to mock a Canukistani politician, we'd be disgusted, and would punish them for their poor taste. Well, by punish I mean, politely ignore.

If Canadians attempted something similar, to mock a Canukistani politician, we'd be disgusted, and would punish them for their poor taste. Well, by punish I mean, politely ignore.

Okay, you got me, that was funny, I chuckled out loud ;)

I see double standards.

Or in simpler sillier language: Some people are so uptight that when they fart, only dogs can hear it. *nod*
I like this quote.

People who already had no intention of voting for Obama?

Mostly, but not completely.

I had a good friend who is usually pretty good at critical thinking ask me why Obama won't say the pledge. She's not opposed to him and will probably vote for him, but that little tidbit had gotten around to her.

Okay, you got me, that was funny, I chuckled out loud ;)

Don't chuckle too much. It's gauche.

I think the new cover is sarcastic, personally.

I guess it depends what definition of "satire" you want to use.

It isn't this: "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit."
What vice or folly is being attacked? Obama being a Muslim terrorist? Well he isn't so it can't be that.

It can't be this either: "A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous."
If it was that, why would it be depicting Obama as a Muslim terrorist? Maybe he thinks that idea ridiculous, but the cover doesn't mock that idea, it reflects it. If you have to explain it, it isn't witty.


What definition of satire does depicting the Obamas as Muslims and terrorists meet?

EDIT:


THAT is satire.


What you're missing is the fact that the New Yorker's cover does not exist in a vacuum, it is set in a clear context for anyone familiar with the New Yorker magazine.

The first principle to understand is that the New Yorker does not believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

The second principle is that other people do believe he is a Muslim terrorist, and idea they generally talk about in vague and unrealistic terms.

The third principle is that this belief is absurd, patently, and even more absurd when illustrated.

The thing being satirized is the notion that Obama and his wife are terrorist militants, and making a picture of them as such, in the very clear context of the cover of the New Yorker magazine, accomplishes what the New Yorker generally sets out to do with its magazine covers- get the reader to chuckle. And it isn't Obama they're chuckling at.

You're the same guy who wondered what the difference was between portraying George Bush as a chimp, and Barak Obama as a monkey, aren't you?

Right, well, I remember how that thread went, I suspect you haven't learned much since then.

Thank you so much for reminding me of that thread so I don't waste my time in this one.

What you're missing is the fact that the New Yorker's cover does not exist in a vacuum, it is set in a clear context for anyone familiar with the New Yorker magazine.

The first principle to understand is that the New Yorker does not believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

The second principle is that other people do believe he is a Muslim terrorist, and idea they generally talk about in vague and unrealistic terms.

The third principle is that this belief is absurd, patently, and even more absurd when illustrated.

The thing being satirized is the notion that Obama and his wife are terrorist militants, and making a picture of them as such, in the very clear context of the cover of the New Yorker magazine, accomplishes what the New Yorker generally sets out to do with its magazine covers- get the reader to chuckle. And it isn't Obama they're chuckling at.

The danger of satire is that not enough people have the wit and awareness to pick it up for what it is. It's like making fun of racism by shouting racial slurs of your choice over and over at the offended ethnicity. Any point is usually lost in the face of the obvious and observed.

And one must really be able to see the pattern here:

Any time that Obama has EVER been criticized on this campaign, he manages to avoid it actually affecting him, and sometimes it costs others their reputations or jobs. Basically, it really is "Oh, we can't criticize our future Dear Leader, he's Jesus himself come down from heaven to save us all! How dare you say anything negative, you must be insane or incredibly stupid to find anything wrong with him!"

And that comes from every media outpost in the country except Fox News.

I congratulate Fox News for doing one thing right - not being afraid to not declare Obama "Saint Barack".

On the other hand, they don't report anything else all that well, so it's not that much of a victory.

And one must really be able to see the pattern here:

Any time that Obama has EVER been criticized on this campaign, he manages to avoid it actually affecting him, and sometimes it costs others their reputations or jobs. Basically, it really is "Oh, we can't criticize our future Dear Leader, he's Jesus himself come down from heaven to save us all! How dare you say anything negative, you must be insane or incredibly stupid to find anything wrong with him!"

And that comes from every media outpost in the country except Fox News.

I congratulate Fox News for doing one thing right - not being afraid to not declare Obama "Saint Barack".

On the other hand, they don't report anything else all that well, so it's not that much of a victory.

FOX News is currently the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration in all but outright name and officiality. Little wonder Dubya hired Tony Snow to be White House Press Secretary. And there's the old adage about broken clocks.

Of course "Saint Barack" has yet to be proven an incompetent manager like Dear Leader Dubya has been at least three times in his life. And each time someone else was left to clean up the mess and Dubya himself was hardly touched.

Elementala recalls it's Ambassador from the United States in protest at the tacky way it's political process is going.

No. It's not libel. It's art. Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody understand what the purpose of art is anymore?

If you'd just stay still long enough for me to mutilate your family jewels in the name of art LG, you'd have a point. Now hold still. Just for a second. ;)

The New Yorker costs $4.50? Fuck that.

What's even worse is the scandalous facts that they've raised their price by 5% a year over the past 2½ years! :D

What's even worse is the scandalous facts that they've raised their price by 5% a year over the past 2½ years! :mad: :D


I would go without two meals a week in exchange for keeping my New Yorker subscription.

Subscribing is some of the best value for money available anywhere in an field.

If you'd just stay still long enough for me to mutilate your family jewels in the name of art LG, you'd have a point. Now hold still. Just for a second. ;)

Many have tried, few have succeeded. ;)

I expect that the junior Senator hasn't had much experience being portrayed by political cartoonists. Welcome to the big leagues, rookie.

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/johnmccainpow_rollingstone.jpg

I don't remember much of a fuss about that cartoon in last month's Rolling Stone.

Double standard?

I expect that the junior Senator hasn't had much experience being portrayed by political cartoonists. Welcome to the big leagues, rookie.

I don't remember much of a fuss about that cartoon in last month's Rolling Stone.

Double standard?

Did you mean this one?
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/McCain_RollingStone.jpg

Did you mean this one?
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/McCain_RollingStone.jpg

Yes. As I said, no fuss raised.

Yes. As I said, no fuss raised.

Well of course no fuss was raised. Everyone knows that only redneck uneducated racist hicks would vote for anyone other than the Democratic Nominee... McCain had it coming, he should have gone AWOL to Canada, Being poked by sticks is his only claim to fame anyway... [/sarcasm]




*feels dirty now :gas: *

There is a difference between true things and false things?

Except the truth in this case is somewhat subjective, yes?

Except the truth in this case is somewhat subjective, yes?

Um, it is an objective truth that Obama is not a Muslim nor a terrorist nor any of those things that Fox News (sic) Channel claims he is. Anybody who disagrees is objectively wrong.

Now, I happen to find the New Yorker cover amusing, because I get the joke. However, I do see the problem with people who will also find it amusing, because they're too stupid to realize that it's mocking them. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom)

They won't get details like the "terrorist fist jab" (unless they watch Fox, in which case they will notice the fist jab but will actually think it is a terrorist greeting instead of a nice way of mocking the people who think that.)

But...
I'm not too worried. The sort of people who will interpret it that way are generally the sort of people who will vote Republican every time anyway...

I think a little more context is required. Do you have a link to the related article of the Obama picture?

The covers of the New Yorker aren't connected with any article; they're usually just big, one-panel cartoons. It started out as a humor magazine for the urbane upper-class of New York.

Actually, I think that's something important to consider, the magazine's target audience. People who read the magazine tend to be liberal and more likely to support Obama, and therefore know that the New Yorker is liberal and supports Obama in spirit if not in any actual endorsement. It's pretty clear, then, that this cover is meant to be ironic and satirical. It takes all of the popular misconception about Obama and puts them in one scene, and the result is ridiculous! (What self-respecting jihadist would have a militant wife, for example?)

However, imagine if this magazine were not the New Yorker but something like, I don't know, The Limbaugh Reader? Then it would be less clear the intent of the cover. It could be being ironic and self-aware, or it could just be incredibly offensive and stupid. If you don't know anything about the magazine, it's hard to tell.

snip

I wholeheartedly agree. The New Yorker is read by a different class of people, 99% of whom will get the joke. As the mag's editors have been arguing on any number of news shows, it is not the magazine's responsibility to cater to the lowest common denominator. It's not their target audience, and they shouldn't have to take that into consideration when producing a piece of satire.

What? You mean, Stephen Colbert isn't really a conservative pundit with a serious show?

Besides, the only people who won't understand it don't do much of the reading anyway.

Apparently everyone got their panties in an bunch over the Obama cover this week...

I'll compare it to the same artists cover of Bush being servant boy...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorker.jpg

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

What say you? Bushes opposition calls him a servant boy to Chaney, so they make covers of it. Bushes opponents say Bush ignores the plight of Americans in natural disasters, they make a cover of it.

Obama's opponents claim Obama is a secret anti-American Muslim and his wife is militant, so they make a cover of it... how is that different?

Your comparison is flawed since, so far as I know, we are not now nor ever have been at war with Nero or teh Roman Empire.

Now; had GWB been illustrated at a Nazi, klansman or other reviled figure indignation would have been comparable if not surpassing.

Oh, and BTW - the cover is meant as a SATIRE of those 'opponents' you mention who 'claim' BO is a terrorist.


Me? I don't think he's smart enough to be a terrorist. BO is just the latest mouthpiece towing his respective parties line -grubbing up the lobbyists favors and money, reaching for his own power and paying lipservice to what this country really needs. (just like the other party) Cracks me up when every problem to cross Washington has only two potential solutions... I could ramble on aobut that for days... From immigration to fuel - BOTH parties have it wrong. They are only interested in the solution most likely to enrich them or give them more power -America be damned.

Did you mean this one?
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/McCain_RollingStone.jpg

Now, that is disturbing. (IMO, anyways)

Or how about this one, of Bush being the proverbial Nero, playing the lute as America burns...

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/TheNewYorkerRomeBurns.jpg

Meh, if something were up against Bush's lips, it's be fundie-sphincter and Cheney's warty, tentaclastic dork, not something wistfully melodic and hopeful. Speaking of hopeful, perhaps in the future it'll be the final pretzel.

No...There's no such thing as too far...If it offends you, Bitch about it, thats your constitutionally given right...

But, the Editors and/or owners of the New Yorker can go as far as they damn well please, because they have the same constitutionally given right...

And...Whoa whats with the smiley change, lol...

Its there first amendment right to print it. As to wheather it was good idea, well, I think the intention was good(to point out the stupidity of the Obama/Muslim people), but the point may have been lost. That seems to be the consensus from the media anyways.

Sorry I don't have more to contribute, but this is a bit of a non-story, or should be.

Well of course no fuss was raised. Everyone knows that only redneck uneducated racist hicks would vote for anyone other than the Democratic Nominee... McCain had it coming, he should have gone AWOL to Canada, Being poked by sticks is his only claim to fame anyway... [/sarcasm]

Are you trying to imply that that's what liberals claim? No one I've heard of has said that only racist rednecks oppose Obama, or that McCain had torture coming, or that any of that urepeatable, trolling garbage you just posted. Thank you for the idiotic, trolling, defamatory political hack job.

Anyway, doesn't this belong in the election thread?



*feels dirty now :gas: *

As well you should.

It didn't go too far, it's satire!

Anyone that has half a brain would recognize it.

Basically, for a very long time, people have been out to defame Obama, an ad hominem campaign. One of the most ridiculous, if not the dumbest slur (period) hurled at Obama was the "terrorist fist jab". Now, considering that this portrays Obama giving Michelle the so called "terrorist fist jab", it's clearly not serious, because any person that really wants to slander Obama wouldn't use something so comically stupid.

Ultimately, it's mocking the fools that think of Obama the way he's portrayed on the cover rather than Obama, and I'm fine with that.

They need to get a life.

Oh, they've got lives all right. Just not lives I'd want to be a part of any more than absolutely necessary.

It didn't go too far, it's satire!

Anyone that has half a brain would recognize it.

Basically, for a very long time, people have been out to defame Obama, an ad hominem campaign. One of the most ridiculous, if not the dumbest slur (period) hurled at Obama was the "terrorist fist jab". Now, considering that this portrays Obama giving Michelle the so called "terrorist fist jab", it's clearly not serious, because any person that really wants to slander Obama wouldn't use something so comically stupid.

Ultimately, it's mocking the fools that think of Obama the way he's portrayed on the cover rather than Obama, and I'm fine with that.

Satire as mentioned in previous posts has an alarming rate of inducing Misaimed Fandoms by a sufficient number of dense people who can't see the satire and instead find themselves hooked on the surface context.

The movie Bamboozled highlights this phenomenon early on.

Did you mean this one?
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/McCain_RollingStone.jpg

the one on top could do with a coat of green paint... big pointy ears, has trouble with speaking intelligibly.

Did the artist let his mind wander back to the last DVD he watched?

Did you see what John Stuart reported on it? They actually kind of made fun of it themselves...