New Yorker Cover: Racist or Brilliant?

Not sure which would convey it better. Please pardon the usage of Mencken, but tis the political season and speaks much more eloquently, than I.

Don't overestimate the decency of the human race. -- H. L. Mencken

No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. -- H.L. Mencken

The New Yorker has not taken the teeth out of anything. They have given it legs!!

I agree. Mykola, your argument assumes that people are intelligent enough to see the New Yorker cover as satire. If this election cycle has shown us anything it's the degree of stupidity of a large number of Americans.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that those who were already inclined to see Obama as the radical Muslim who will sneak into the White House kitchen, steal the silverware, impregnate the cook, @!$%# on the Constitution, and then open the borders to hordes of fire-breathing jihadists don't even look at the New Yorker. If anything, they fear their eyes might be plucked from their sockets by a vengeful Old Testament God who sees any acknowledgment of the existence of liberals as sufficient reason to crank the burners under the Lake of Fire up to 11.

And those of us who have already realized the simple stupidity of the caricature that, as Mykola notes, pundits have been drawing with words for the last 7 or 8 months should simply find this amusing. I know that I certainly took it as a poke at Fox, et al, rather than at Obama upon first sight.

So the question is whether fence-sitters will see it as either the "truth" or "satire." And that's an open question.

You have to think that both sides of the political spectrum are upset for different reasons. The Obama camp is upset because they fear the image will cement the opinions of those half-educated @!$%#tards who have believed the lies told by Obama's opponents all along. Mistakenly, they feel they still have a chance to reach these idiots in sheep's clothing. I applaud the Obama camp's idealism, even as it makes me lower my estimation of their perspicuity a notch or two. The conservative @!$%#tard brigade is upset because the cover explicitly lays bare their inherent racism, and paints it, as Myk notes, in stark colors that cannot be misjudged. Yes, Republicans, here is what you've said. Stupid, isn't it? (And die-hard Hillary ans are likely not to give a @!$%#, so long as whatever fallout occurs paints both sides in the worst light.)

I just have to wonder, though-- don't we have something better to talk about? Does this really deserve, what-- half a dozen stories or more on the front page of Newsvine? I mean, I'm glad that Myk brought a semblance of rationality to its discussion, but the endless fascination over the intellectually bankrupt aspects of this election cycle make me just want to pimp-slap America in the face.

Why does America have to make the election of the President into a Jerry Springer episode?

Honestly, I'm done watching. I know who I'm voting for in November, and I'll take a pass on more of this bull@!$%# that passes for news-- on television, print, AND on Newsvine.

The Obama camp is upset because they fear the image will cement the opinions of those half-educated @!$%#tards who have believed the lies told by Obama's opponents all along

See, the problem I had with the cartoon depiction is that those half educated @!$%#tards vote. And trust me, there are plenty of people who feel this way about Obama. If you have not noticed that here on Newsvine, I can tell you that I get emails from different family members almost on a daily basis excoriating me not to vote for Obama for he is a closet Muslim, that he is basically everything that this cartoon depicts. These @!$%#tards will look at this cartoon and say, "yea, that's what we've been saying about him all along." As others have noted, they will not read the actual article to see that it was satire. This image will be cemented into their heads and you can not just dismiss them by calling them @!$%#tards. @!$%#tards they most certainly are, but they vote and that's what scares me.

I have personally put, "Obama '08: Change we can believe in" as my personal signature in all my emails. The @!$%# really hit the fan when I started sending emails to my family with that signature. It's been quite hilarious actually.

I also grew tired of getting all these forwarded emails spreading lies, from them and decided to answer every one of them, with the facts and with a request to not ever send me another forwarded email again. They haven't stopped altogether, but they have slowed down to a trickle.

This image will be cemented into their heads and you can not just dismiss them by calling them @!$%#tards. Oh, but I can. This magazine cover isn't what cemented this image in their heads. It resided there all along. and they're not interested in finding out otherwise, would, in fact, dismiss any suggestion to the contrary.

@!$%#tards they most certainly are, but they vote and that's what scares me. They scared me in 2000, and they scared me in 2004. But if America is so stupid as to not have learned from the past eight years, then it gets precisely the government it deserves.

I also grew tired of getting all these forwarded emails spreading lies, from them and decided to answer every one of them, with the facts and with a request to not ever send me another forwarded email again. They haven't stopped altogether, but they have slowed down to a trickle. Yeah, that's been my experience anytime I've confronted relatives with facts. Nice to know that it isn't just my family.

Phaedrus72 ,since excoriate means to wear off the skin or flay, I'm not sure your use of it makes sense. Are they excoriating you, or Obama?

iarnuocon

Speaking of "@!$%#tardery" did you happen to read Ryan Lizza's underlying article? It's far more damaging than this cover.

Who's more stupid, the person who decided to put the image on the cover or the person who didn't take the time or make the effort to find the meaning behind the image?

Adds a whole new meaning to "don't judge a book magazine by its cover, doesn't it?

These are the same people who, when A Modest Proposal came out, started looking up recipes...

are the same people who, when A Modest Proposal came out, started looking up recipes...

(off to go remove humans from the oven)

Wow, I hadn't seen that link. Mary, Jesus, chicken, egg and the Q'uran, all in one paragraph. I'm ready to move on to something simpler. Time to pick beans. You guys are far too sophfisticated for me. Or should that have been "terrorist-fisticated"? I dunno, don't care!!

I know, I was just there...seems like half the people agree with the cover and the other half are using it as proof that he's the anti-christ. It's actually pretty horrifying.

I avoid even commenting on the links from MSNBC so as not to be guilty by association. Some of the comments are downright scary.

It's true. I thought this was funny -- but of course the parties and campaigns have to denounce it, for the sake of all those Americans (scary that they're part of the same country) who would take it seriously. Sigh.

Cripes! That link was way worse than the cartoon. Is that what our nation is made up of? Deep down inside me I'm hoping that some strange computer has been on autopilot, randomly generating that garbage. It's like they aren't even having a conversation. It's just a big chaotic, schizophrenic amalgam of mindlessness.

I don't even know where to start with that. Can we have a button that automatically deletes MSNBC articles from our conversation tracker?

seems like half the people agree with the cover and the other half are using it as proof that he's the anti-christ. It's actually pretty horrifying.

My girlfriends Aunt made exactly that claim, saying that Obama was the anti-Christ. Damn, I really liked going to her church too!!

I have many other family members, who, while never actually coming and saying it, really do believe him to be the anti-Christ. I told them that the position was already filled 8 years ago.

This is why Newsvine proper (ie, not the MSNBC.com threads...) is the best news discussion site on the internet.

Myk, maybe I'm stupid but how do you tell the difference between the MSNBC threads and Newsvine proper? Because I clicked over to that thread and it sure looks like Newsvine proper to me.

I have personally seen a lot of the same types of comments left on that thread, all over Newsvine.

This is just like the big black dick and you've summed up my thoughts

I read that too fast and read the word "the" as "my" and did a doubletake

Yeah, this is just like my big black dick.

Yeah, this is just like my big black dick.

Mine too.

can you tell I'm having a crazy day?

I thought you were going to get rid of that?! :-P

Would you get rid of your dick?

Man, talk about picking a bad time to leave this discussion - I'm at work and headed to a non-net-connected site.

This is like a soap opera except about genitilia. Perhaps detachable penis could be the theme song for "As the black dick turns,"

sorry for the digression, myk.

sorry for the digression, myk.

I'm not.

What many are missing is the history of the New Yorker, specifically its recent history. Of all the possible figures and things they could've lampooned, they chose this.

I understand satire, but as a former subscriber and one who's read the magazine for decades (from the past glories of E.B. White and Lillian Ross, Truman Capote,Pauline Kael, editor William Shawn, Jamaica Kincaid, and even a brief stint by Tina Brown) this is unparalleled. This carries the unmistakable taint of ethnic bias.

How do you define pornography: I know it when I see it.

Ok, enough. Back to the original topic, nothing to see here...

yeesh, you people.

What better place for a discussion like this that some might find offensive than in an article about a cover that some - wait for it - find offensive.

Incidentally I was thinking earlier about this:
Right as I went offline I was alternating between two threads, this one and one by Spaman, and in this one we were joking about black dicks and in that one I was saying that no it's not ok to refer to a newsviner as a twat and meanwhile we're still dealing with Jesse Jackson referring to cutting off Obama's nuts and yet while I just typed the words "nuts" and "twat" and "dick" the newspapers got into hot water- or just plain looked stupid - for refusing to spell out the word nuts... and all of this reminded me that it was just a few weeks ago that we lost George Carlin fighting over words much stronger?
Is this all semantics? I dunno. Just musing out loud. I know this thought crossed my mind

Does anyone else wonder what kind of routine Carlin would have pulled off about the whole "nuts" thing? I think the funniest thing I've read on it was a columnist asking, if Jackson's problem is with what Obama is saying why wouldn't he express a desire to hurt his mouth or tongue as oppoese to wanting to castrate him?

What many are missing is the history of the New Yorker, specifically its recent history. Of all the possible figures and things they could've lampooned, they chose this.

But they're not lampooning the Obamas. They're defaming his most egregious (and increasingly common) detractors: those who have made the literal accusations depicted in this cartoon. The subject matter is the implication, the cartoon itself--and not the visage (or effigy, if you like). It's crucial that we approach all sides of pretense in this important election with a critical eye. The offended can turn the other cheek as far as I'm concerned.

This carries the unmistakable taint of ethnic bias.

I've never known a political action in this country that was free of "ethnic bias". I don't see the relevance of such an argument.

How do you define pornography: I know it when I see it.

So do I.

The caricatures are unmistakably Barack and Michelle. Yes, it lampoons them by exaggerating false pretenses of them.

Some people just refuse to accept racism.

caroaber..

It's an illustration of the caricature painted by the right wing. They're the target here.

Dennis:

You trust Mr. Blitt and the New Yorker. I cannot.

Even if it was an inside joke, I am, without question, on the outside.

Look at their mashhead. Look at those of the Conde Nast and Time-Life publications. Hearst. Any major U.S. publisher. Notice the dearth of Black people, the exclusion. Yet now I should trust their superior sense of irony? NYC is the epicenter of media in America. Yet it's hard to find a major publication that is truly inclusive of American talent.

John, you are a shining example of what is wrong with this country today. Every one of your claims has already been debunked, on numerous occasions. It is disputable only by those of you who WANT Obama to be everything you believe that he is. YOUR head is the one in the sand, my friend.

You showed your true colors right here:

and openly anti-American (white)

What the hell was the connotation of that statement?

You are exactly the kind of person I wrote comment #17 for.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "your claims" have "already been debunked, on numerous occasions" - did Michelle Obama say she was wrong to say she had never before been proud of her country? Or did the Obama family NOT attend and actively participate in a racist church for 20 years? Or maybe you have belonged to and actively participated in a group for 20 years when you disagree with their major beliefs?

I think the cartoon is funny, but I disagree with the statements that it makes it impossible for someone to disagree with Obama, or that only someone who is half-educated would dislike Obama. Just saying "Abra-cadabra, you're wrong" does not make it so, or logical.

I'll let the first one stand because it was responded to, but I'm not going to have this turn into yet another thread full of blatantly false, politically-motivated allegations.

And before you accuse me of rampant Obama-support, I don't even know if I want to vote for him. But if you're going to engage in a dialogue, do so respectfully to both your opponents and to the truth. There's frankly no excuse for the kinds of egregious claims you're making here, JohnRussell, and if you want to keep it up take it elsewhere.

You have got to be kidding. I have researched TUCC and Rev Wright probably more than anyone at this forum. I have seen person after person over the course of this year get all apoplectic over the media discussing the "Rev Wright/TUCC" issue, only for to find out that they did not have even the simplest knowledge or understanding of the ministry of Rev Wright or his church. Evidently you fall into that class.

The bottom line is, Barack Obama made his bed over the course of those 20 years, as did his wife, and they will NEVER be able to escape association with his racist minister and friend. That is the reality of it, whether you boo-hoo over it or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "your claims" have "already been debunked, on numerous occasions" - did Michelle Obama say she was wrong to say she had never before been proud of her country? Or did the Obama family NOT attend and actively participate in a racist church for 20 years? Or maybe you have belonged to and actively participated in a group for 20 years when you disagree with their major beliefs?

I think the cartoon is funny, but I disagree with the statements that it makes it impossible for someone to disagree with Obama, or that only someone who is half-educated would dislike Obama. Just saying "Abra-cadabra, you're wrong" does not make it so, or logical.

Margo, I have been dealing with people like this for all this year. They do not have even the most superficial knowledge of Rev Wright or the philosophy/theology of TUCC ( a philosophy/theology, by the way, that Barack Obama has never yet disavowed) yet they feel free to pontificate as to how horrible and racist it is to question Obama on these matters. They are the 'true believers' who hitched their wagon to a theme ( change, the first black President, charisma) without bothering to find out the facts.

I will repeat, Barack Obama created the environment in which he can be lampooned or even attacked by people who do not trust him. He is not being persecuted.

He has supporters who want to excuse every single thing he has ever said or done, because they are desperate to rid the world of a Republican administration.

I'm not that into butt-kissing.

I will repeat, Barack Obama created the environment in which he can be lampooned or even attacked by people who do not trust him. He is not being persecuted.

He has supporters who want to excuse every single thing he has ever said or done, because they are desperate to rid the world of a Republican administration.

So, he's being rightly punished for being a black man with Muslim heritage? I don't follow your logic. He's not a terrorist, he's not a bin Laden supporter; his wife isn't a guerrilla warrior; and they sure as @!$%# haven't ever burned flags in the Oval Office. What has Obama "done" that is "lampooned" in this illustration?

Well, the Muslim thing I don't see and don't agree with any criticism of them on that basis. But the other parts of it, the black nationalism, the disrespect for America, he has opened the door to that. In the cartoon Michelle is depicted as a black nationalist ala the Black Panthers. That is completely in line with the genesis of the theology preached at the church they attended for 20 years. BLT (Black Liberation Theology) is an offshoot of the Black Nationalist movement of the 60's and 70's. The disrespect for America is part and parcel of the friendships they have held over the years with Wright and Pfleger.

Barack Obama has never disassociated himself from the concepts of BLT, was very late to distance himself from the anti-American Rev Wright, and Michelle has herself said a few disparaging things about the USA, which is also of a theme with her long time membership of that church and her spiritual mentor, Rev Wright. They laid these eggs for 20 years and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Cause and effect.

Firstly, the "disrespect for America" you cite is a ludicrous overstatement. The day this country equates critical thought with treason is the day America dies. Secondly, I'm sorry, but what you wrote is little more than paranoid spin and conjecture. You don't have to like Obama, and you certainly don't have to agree with his policies, but a radical anything he is not.

Barck and Michelle Obama spent almost 20 years as members of a church that is anti-white and anti- American, based on the beliefs of the person who ran the show and dictated the philosophy, his friend Jeremiah Wright.

We can't just go back and erase this truth, as much as you may wish it could be so. Obama will have this cross to bear for the rest of his public life.

Pro-black does not mean anti-white, nor anti-American.

I agree with you john the Obama's went to a church for almost 20 years and listened to the same preacher and for anyone to say they don't believe what that preacher is saying is a fool. How many people go to a church all the time and not believe what that preacher is saying. Oh but I forgot that is racist. lol

Folks go to church for more than just politics. To insinuate that you follow every pronouncement from the pulpit as an obedient automaton disqualifies you as an individual and brands you as a fanatic. Senator Obama's behavior, inspite of the provocative pronouncements on national press conferences of his former pastor, does not support the latter. For example, not every catholic supports the Holy See's views on abortion and contraception, but I will not discuss that in this particular thread.

The point is that the Senator is capable of separating the State and Religion in his deliberative process, a positive quality, IMO.

I think for me, the major issue with the church is that blatant racist commentary is not a "little" thing. A white candidate who went to a church that propounded racism against African Americans would (rightly) be ridiculed and condemned by the press. Even if you agree with some of the things a group does, if the leaders of the group are constantly spouting hatred towards another group, wouldn't you question your membership in it?

Precisely. Racist comments are not a little thing, particularly in the context of a presidential election. Even you would admit that Senator Obama distanced himself from these inflammmatory press conferences by a mile, and then some. Just like McCain distancing his campaign from that pastor in Texas. Par for the course, would you not agree? Why don't we all move on from this topic and affirm that State and Religion should be separate in the USA?

I don't like either candidate, but I would have to say I do not agree that the two are the same. McCain was not a member of the church in Texas. And while I agree that state and religion should be separate, a person's beliefs of whatever nature have bearing on their decisions. It is not possible for a person not to be influenced by what they believe in and feel strongly about.

Pro-black does not mean anti-white, nor anti-American.

For example, when Wright talked about 'America' using AIDS as a weapon of genocide, or of the US government "murdering" blacks in the New Orleans flood, he is accusing WHITES and only whites. I don't know how many times one has to say the same thing over and over again to some of you guys. Wright equates 'America', the United States, with WHITES. Blacks are 'Africans'.

When he makes his paranoid charges, he is indicting white people. Can some of you get that through your thick skull?

when Wright talked about 'America' using AIDS as a weapon of genocide, or of the US government "murdering" blacks in the New Orleans flood, he is accusing WHITES and only whites

Right. Because we all know the US government is "WHITE and only white."

Is pro-white racist, though?

New Yorker Cover: Racist or Brilliant?

Neither.

Those around and supporting him are the real culprits in today's tragedy. Why not point them out rather than rouse rabble with so called satire?

Are you under the delusion that the 'culprits' as you describe it, are not pointed out on a minute by minute basis on this Newsvine and elsewhere?

Speaking on behalf of the educated youth (Or at least Brandon and I) I give our full support to the New Yorker's rights to take pot shots at whatever they want.

Freedom of speech is not the only right of the people and press, but it is at the top of the list.

-Dave

I'm truly dismayed. I also once thought that, for once, we had the chance to elect a President who could bring us all together as a nation. ha ha ha ha What a joke that has turned out to be? I now see that we will NEVER have a President who is able to bring us all together as a nation, that we will ALWAYS be a divided nation, because American IS divided. I had thought it was all the fault of Bush that we were so divided, but America has been divided from the very @!$%#ing beginning apparently. Half the country hates Bush, as do I, I can't stand the @!$%#er!! But now half the country hates Obama, and the other half, myself included, hates everything that McCain stands for. So whoever wins this November, half the country is going to be pissed. And if anyone thinks that there's not a racist "@!$%#tard" out there, that will not try to take a shot at Obama if elected, well.. just don't say I didn't tell you so.

What do we now know about Obama, that we 'didn't know' six to nine months ago, when he was promoted as someone who could bring the country together?

We know he was a member of a racist church for 20 years, and thinks rural and small town white Americans are 'bitter'.

We know he permitted a smear campaign to be run against his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton.

We know he is a standard issue ambitious politician that will tailor responses to policy questions in whatever fashion that will get him the most votes.

Of course he cannot unite the country under these circumstances.

Phaedrus72
I just don't get it.

I cannot say there were always divisions, but certainly in my near 44 years, of adulthood, there mostly has been. I seem to remember a group espousing the necessity of having nuclear weapons, if we were never going to use them. Their intent was not disbanding them. I can remember rumors of people cheering when JFK was killed. People were protesting, riots, a war, assassinations, etc.

There was no internet, however. I, frequently, wonder if the internet and 24/7 news have achieved the desired effect of providing information. Once upon a time, you spoke your mind in public and, sometimes, you paid the consequences if someone disagreed. Sometimes, you truly fought for your right of free speech. The internet has allowed us to speak without any real retaliation. We are able to say and do things that we would not dare say in public.

This is, probably, a missquote of some old saying... "who knows what evil, lies in the hearts of men."

The internet is now providing us with that information.

Whom do we thank?

Here is the problem with Obama bringing us together as a nation. He is backtracking on the most important issues that got him where he is today. Most people who supported Obama (myself included) are enraged by his recent turns. Now that has given people who wanted to play the race card every reason possible to do so. At least a white politician would have waited until he got into office to spin 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It's almost like he doesn't want to be elected. Now it's to the point where I don't care what card you play, just get him otta there.

Phaedrus72
If you don't get it now you never will. There is enough bigots on both sides. Just because a white man has something bad to say is always a racist but let a black man say almost the same thing and nothing is ever said about it. You can't have it both ways. Both races are for there own kind and that is human nature. What is wrong is when they both say things to the other that is hate full and malicious. What you think in private isn't wrong until you espouse it in public.

I didn't mean that comment as a criticism about your article, Myk. I'm just tired of Newsvine being dominated by articles from AP, and seeds from MSNBC. Even some of our more prominent members are now seeding constantly from MSNBC. How many ever did that before they realized what a goldmine it can be for votes and comments? I very rarely used to see a seed from MSNBC before they took over Newsvine. The majority are just recycled AP stories anyway, and we don't need more of those.

Frank:

Actually, I don't see anything even remotely surprising about your list. The only difference between, say, the "Nappy-headed Hos" stories featuring Don Imus and this New Yorker contremps is there's more commenters. The Columnists Box was just as dominated by Imus articles and the Top Seeds were just as swamped. Basically, it boils down to "Newsvine is bigger."

It's not a Newsvine-specific phenomena at all. These highly-charged issues come up, they dominate the political discourse all over for a few days, then they fade.

Here's the trick I use to limit my exposure to the MSNBC super-cell threads. I access hot stories either through the Columnists' box or through group pages. When I go through a group page, I know the thread is mostly regulars. Although I do keep the "Most Active" module on my front page, I just us it to see where the tornadoes are. And stay away.

MSNBC. Even some of our more prominent members are now seeding constantly from MSNBC. How many ever did that before they realized what a goldmine it can be for votes and comments?

Well, first it allows a Newsviner to moderate the thread, not an MSNBC user. I try to grab them when I can for that reason alone. Second, if itʼs an AP story and it tells me the story is at Newsvine already I wonʼt reseed from MSNBC. But not all the AP stories that show up at MSNBC are at Newsvine for some reason (even if I do a search for them).

I'm looking forward to the end of the political cycle so that something interesting pops up on the front page every once in a while.

I think it was brilliant satire. Unfortunately, those who were supposed to learn from it are too stupid to recognize it as satire and have, instead, taken it as verification for their convoluted beliefs. People who believed those inane rumors won't bother to read the article. Most of them probably can't read, judging from the spelling and grammar of some of those who have posted responses on the internet.

Yeah, just saw it this morning Riggs. Jeez, can't believe the number of green heads I've been seeing. The thing is, the vote to comment ratio on that one looks like it's 10 to 1!

Myk:

Its a legit seed, your intro alone is reason enough. People do need to think long and hard about the dirty tricks aspect of elections these days. In a way, this cover pretty much stole the thunder for anyone thinking of a Swiftboat episode for Obama, based on the the really dumb muslim radical crap.

Seems to me the fact that this is getting so much coverage is a very good thing. This points a well deserved finger at conservatives that only see terrorism when they see Mr and Mrs Obama, (I'm sorry, I really don't see anything racist about this cartoon). But it also points a finger at all of us, inadvertently perhaps, at how oversensitive we have and are becoming.

Brilliant...Absolutely!