I am watching the news as I write this, and they are discussing an appalling cover showing Barak in Muslim garb and Michelle dressed in 60's radical clothing with an automatic rifle slung over her shoulder, bumping fists. I really could not care less what the point is they are trying to make; they crossed a line here. And I am not even a supporter of him, at this time.

I sincerely hope they are flooded with calls for subscription cancellations over this tacky shit.

Political campaigns and the lampooning by the media of the candidates and elected officials have gotten out of hand before, but I cannot recall a depiction of a candidate and his spouse that was more demeaning than this.


I see that jedd has shared the cover in the Circle of Obama thread, for those that have not seen it.

You know, I just don't see the controversy. When I first saw it, I understood that they were having a laugh at the expense of the Fox News crowd.

It shouldn't even require an explanation, much less apology.

Maybe it is a generational thing.

Political campaigns and the lampooning by the media of the candidates and elected officials have gotten out of hand before, but I cannot recall a depiction of a candidate and his spouse that was more demeaning than this.

I think it's important to keep in mind that The New Yorker isn't lampooning the Obamas at all. It was a Fox News host who coined the term "terrorist fist bump." There should be no doubt at all that she's the target of this jab.

Given that, I don't see how it's a generational thing. Just a misunderstanding on the part of anyone thinking the cover was ever aimed at the Obamas.

Well, us old fogies tend to see something like that and react to it's inappropriateness before looking at what the author of the humor intended.

I saw a caricature of Angela Davis and was offended; and the appearance of Obama has indeed been a Fox staple of late, which is why I could have laughed at it. But, the two together was what irked me. The cover really does look like Angela Davis more than Michelle Obama. (IMO)

I think it's important to keep in mind that The New Yorker isn't lampooning the Obamas at all. It was a Fox News host who coined the term "terrorist fist bump." There should be no doubt at all that she's the target of this jab.

Given that, I don't see how it's a generational thing. Just a misunderstanding on the part of anyone thinking the cover was ever aimed at the Obamas.

Except there are tons of people from the otherside that view it and cheer. There 'shouldn't' be any doubt, but there are too many people that won't get it, and no the New Yorker tends to be higher brow than pandering to those groups, it just looks bad.

IMO, it's what could be a funny joke that just goes to far.

If the Fox News crowd wants to point and cheer, that just makes them look all the more ridiculous to everyone else.

As you say, the New Yorker caters to a higher brow audience. A majority of that audience certainly got the joke. The New Yorker shouldn't have to dumb down to the lowest common denominator, just to make sure the American Idol fans can understand.

If anything it didn't go over the top enough. I wouldn't have put it on the front cover myself but I think the joke was obvious and it's basically a statement that people are too stupid to think critically about ANYTHING these days ... didn't we already know that?

Maybe if we hadn't killed off our education system and replaced it with an industrial diploma mill.

If anything it didn't go over the top enough. I wouldn't have put it on the front cover myself but I think the joke was obvious and it's basically a statement that people are too stupid to think critically about ANYTHING these days ... didn't we already know that?

Maybe if we hadn't killed off our education system and replaced it with an industrial diploma mill.


no comment

industrial diploma mill.


Damn, but that is a heckuva description!

Well, us old fogies tend to see something like that and react to it's inappropriateness before looking at what the author of the humor intended.



Maybe that's the problem with a lot of "controversies" today.....

Maybe that's the problem with a lot of "controversies" today.....

I have had this conversation with my 75 year old mother. It is why there is the natural life cycle ending in death. Over the period of 80-100 years, there are so many changes that it makes it difficult for the elders to keep up, and so the old dying off and making room for the young makes sense.

With the technological leaps of the last 50-60 years, there is a lot to absorb. But with the advances of just the past 20 years, I cannot imagine how someone could ever be bored.


But, to the question of "controversies" and the affect being an old fogie might have, I believe we all approach life with a certain mindset we have constructed throughout our life. Old fogies like me happen to have a few other experiences and memories that become a part of that filter through which we view things, that those under 35 or so do not have.

With the Obama cover, I saw Angela Davis being cast as Michelle Obama. Now, many here have most likely never heard of Angela Davis, but if they had that same memory they might better be able to understand my ire.

Ok, that is enough of a long-winded reply to a one line quote, hehehe.

While I don't agree, I do think it's interesting to hear that detailed reasoning for why it was offensive. Sure beats all the people insisting that it's offensive, just because.

And meanwhile somewhere else in America John McCain points out that he has trouble browsing the Internets, obvious emphasis on the "s", so he has to have members of his staff do it for him. Unfortunately we can't outlaw voting by morons who might misinterpret the New Yorker cover, but it's one heckava distraction for those so out of touch they can't even point and click. It's true, you can go to the google and see.

Uh oh, seems the Daily Show correspondent tonight is gonna take Bylimet's side on this one!

Uh oh, seems the Daily Show correspondent tonight is gonna take Bylimet's side on this one!


/flex

Hell, the article was supposed to be making fun of Republicans, even though it's almost entirely been Clinton Democrats bringing up the race and Muslim issue they're obviously mocking. And has anyone on the GOP side bitched about being wrongfully made fun of? Grow some balls people.

And the prospect of having a president we can't mock (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?ex=1373947200&en=935f4562bc9195b4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) is deeply disturbing. I can think of no better reason not voting for the naive humorless arrogant dolt.

Because the GOP haven't ever been "wrongfully" made fun of. ;)

Kidding aside, unfortunately I saw the cover as I was reading this thread. I went in to it thinking I was going to insulted but immediately upon seeing it saw that it was really poking fun at the GOP not Obama.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=176628&title=obama-cartoon&byDate=true

That was goddamned funny.

WOLF BLITZER!!!!

A racist ... and an Anti-Semite ... COULD BE PRESIDENT!

LOL

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/07/22/art.vfcover.cnn.jpg

It's not offensive, though because it's white people on the cover.....

It's not offensive, though because it's white people on the cover.....


It is a response to the Obama cover...

So, will Republicans get all up in arms about it? Or should they just "grin and bear it" as certain Democrats were told to do when they got offended at the New Yorker cover?

Kind of reminds me of the double standard of domestic violence: If a man hits a woman, he's scum that should be thrown in jail, but if a woman hits a man, he's told to suck it up and be a tough guy....

Or the gay thing. Gay men are a turn off but lesbians rock!

Only certain lesbians rock. Not all lesbians look like the ones in pornos, some look like male truck drivers.

You really don't want to see them go at it....:eek:

I think we all take ourselves too seriously. God, I hope we don't fall back into that whole Polically Correct thang... ever.

On a side note, is it just me or...


Damn, but that is a heckuva description!


and


And meanwhile somewhere else in America John McCain points out that he has trouble browsing the Internets, obvious emphasis on the "s", so he has to have members of his staff do it for him. Unfortunately we can't outlaw voting by morons who might misinterpret the New Yorker cover, but it's one heckava distraction for those so out of touch they can't even point and click. It's true, you can go to the google and see.


Evil twin? :D

Now that is just one sick, stretched-too-thin conspiracy theory.

Besides, Rover and I disagree enough that we would either have to be one person with a schizo personality, or something akin to Tom Tryon's book, "The Other.

But, it was one heckuva job of casting out a lure! :cool:

Much <3

Dammit, you guy's are assholes! now i'm gonna have to spend the next 3 hour's surfing lesbian porn just to make just to make sure i have a good "grasp" on the issue!

I think we all take ourselves too seriously. God, I hope we don't fall back into that whole Polically Correct thang... ever.

On a side note, is it just me or...



and



Evil twin? :D


Note spelling: Heckava- Heckuva