My copy of the New Yorker was in my mailbox when I arrived home Tuesday night.  I have been receiving the New Yorker for about 30 years after reading Brendan Gill’s book about it, and deciding that my mother (who has probably been a subscriber since the mid or late 1940s) might have been right about what the magazine presents.  Between Roger Angell, John Updike, Woody Allen, Garrison Keillor, Elizabeth Kolbert (today, Elizabeth Drew in the days of yore), Seymour Hersh and the drawings/cartoons, if you insist, and everything else, I am always glad to see it.

So I got really angry at the reaction here people had to the New Yorker cover. Sure, it should make you angry. That was the intent. But don't get mad at the New Yorker. They are pointing out how stupid the attacks are.

So I had a huge rant building up inside me. I was going to go though and grab comments from people that run counter to the 1st amendment. I was going to compare comments here with comments from people on the right (there was a plethora that were equally inane as the tripe of right wing blogs).

But time, and the comic strip This Modern World have eased my anger...

And I have to say seeing the image in hard copy on the magazine is jarring. It's the opposite of satirical. It's a racist image posing as satire.

I saw Remnick interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, and he said that the cover was "Colbert in print." It's tedious to explain how wrong he is. Like those folks here who claim the cover is "too hip for the room"--the hip racists as another diarist referred to them--it's clear that Remnick has a shaky grasp of what satire is.

Had the exact same image been in a thought bubble above Karl Rove's head, the cartoon (The Politics of Fear) would have made sense. Had the cartoon appeared on the day of Obama's inauguration, it would have still been tasteless, but actually could have been seen as a semi-humorous swipe at the fears of frustrated Obama-haters.

In the absence of such context, the image has to stand as a piece of racist propaganda, fit for the cover of the KKK Monthly, but not the nation's best magazine.

I found some good links to other cartoonists sites at Hullabaloo today, and since this is a time-sensitive thing (meaning that the cartoons will roll off soon) I thought I'd provide the links to the sites here. The cartoons linked offer a different view of how cartoonists have approached the same subject as the New Yorker cover, but in my opinion did a much better job at their satire. One of the cartoons features a take-off on the New Yorker cover that features John and Cindy McCain war mongering, burning the constitution and pill popping, but under the title of the National Review magazine to illustrate the effect of a failed effort at satire. Links are below

I wrote the other day about the now-infamous New Yorker cover:

Andy Borowitz has the list of official, campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes in the wake of the now-infamous New Yorker cover flap, undoubtedly the silliest Outrage! of the election yet. Reasonable people can disagree about the success of the cover as satire—personally I think it works, and I think the ensuing shitstorm is pretty strong evidence of that—but whether it's a "good" satire or not the meaning is absolutely clear, inoffensive, and pro-Obama: it's the morons who believe this crap and the media figures who cynically peddle it who are being mocked, not the Obamas.

I'm even not sure who these mythical people are supposed to be who are with it enough to have heard of the New Yorker in the first place yet still clueless enough to take the cover at face value.

Borowitz hits the nail on the head again.

Here's the thing: I was clearly sympathetic to Obama's campaign throughout the primary, and I certainly don't expect him, or any Democrat, really, to be on my side on every or even most issues--I'm too far to the left for that. And I don't expect to vote against him (not that it matters where I vote from), in spite of the fact that his "move to the center" has so far included a huge capitulation on FISA, a soundbite that suggests he approves of Faith Based Initiatives, and the fact that he is clearly pulling back on his signature issue--i.e. Iraq. If I were interested in purity, I wouldn't be looking to politicians for my model.

Click To Read

On last night's edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart took the time to go over the biggest Obama controversy to hit the airwaves since... well, at least a week or so. I'm talking of course about the New Yorker's satirical cover of Obama smears and mis perceptions.

I was glad to find that Jon & his writers feel the same way about this issue that I do - that its really blown totally out of proportion and that it's just a satirical cartoon. The incredible "outrage" that people in the media are displaying over such a clearly satirical spoof also comes across as disingenuous because it is people in their profession that have allowed these rumors and smears to go on without seriously being debunked. If there is no merit to these accusations why lend weight to them or treat them as serious concerns?

Here is the Daily Show clip to watch and then feel free to weigh in with your own reactions to it and/or the New Yorker cartoon:

Please forgive me for my language but some of these talking shitheads really piss me off. Maureen Down really has a big bug up her ass concerning Obama. He has become her voodoo doll and she enjoys sticking pins in him. Her latest article in the New York Times 'May we Mock, Barack?' contends:

"If Obama keeps being stingy with his quips and smiles, and if the dominant perception of him is that you can’t make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor."

Here's some advice for you Miss Dowd: before you write something about Obama that is completely untrue, maybe you should follow his campaign. Your article is a big pile of horse manure. Obama is the funniest and most engaging candidate in this election campaign, and I might add, in recent history. Ms. Dowd is trying to stoke the narrative of Obama as aloof and elitist. Obama has gone out of his way to connect with the voters. If you watch any of his town halls or rallies, you will see him shaking hand, taking pictures and talking with voters. This is one of his most endearing qualities and blowasses like Dowd know that.

After Thomas Nast taught us to use india ink to break swords, the word skewer took on a new meaning. Please pardon my KGO moment, but maybe the editorial cartoonists have an answer to a netrooter's prayer -- skewer satire with satire!

Below the fold are links to three cartoons that gave a smile. Thankfully, there are more, too many to list here.

This week´s New Yorker attempted to lampoon all the right-wing myths about the looming specter of an Obama presidency with its cover by artist Barry Blitt. They managed to piss off the Obama campaign, right-wing pundits and the Republican party, and satirists across the country. To the Obama people, the cover was a ´´tastless and offensive´´ reproduction of the smears they´ve suffered for a year now. To sensitive right-wingers the problem was the truthful accusation that they peddle ridiculous lies. And for comedians, the problem was that the cover just wasn´t funny, that it wasn´t real satire.

Well, as the old saying goes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s no longer funny.

There’s another well known axiom to humor. Tragedy plus time equals comedy.

Obviously, when it comes to the New Yorker’s latest cover featuring the Obamas as closet Al-Qaeda members and/or Black Panther era terrorists, an insufficient amount of time has passed between that elusive "now" and the whisper campaign that is ongoing against them. As to tragedy, the only tragedy in this episode seems to be the way in which the New Yorker has turned a subject matter that hungers for serious political discussion into a mangled, tone deaf and insensible gaffe.

The current New Yorker cover cartoon depiction of the Obamas is generating controversy, in part because there may be some people who don't get the joke.  As a guest pointed out on this morning's NPR show On Point, the cartoon misses the mark because it fails to show anyone who might be the one holding its extremist, racist and insulting views.

This reminds me of an earlier controversy over a political cartoon that came out during a presidential race.  The time was 1976 and the controversy was over Nixon's and Ford's arch-conservative Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz.  On an airplane, he ran into Pat Boone and John Wesley Dean, the latter the former Nixon aide who blew the whistle on him.  Dean was reporting for Rolling Stone, but Butz probably just saw him as an old White House cow-orker.  So he told them some jokes...

Politico provided a partial Larry King interview of Obama.

Updated w/video

Lost in the uproar over the New Yorker's current cover cartoon (and how best to respond to it) is, in my mind, the central issue around which Obama supporters, undecided voters and even Obama opponents can focus their attention:

The cartoon depicts the burning of an American flag.

Reasonable people disagree as to whether the portrayal of the Obamas is effective, or offensive, or ironic, or satirical, or all of the above.  

But images, even cartoon images, of burning an American flag are considered by a substantial portion of the American electorate to be inherently offensive.

Some of you old-timers might remember my first Their Reality has Lapped Our Satire diary, and perhaps even the second one, Their Reality has Lapped Our Satire, Again.  Those diaries really came home to me this week with the New Yorker cover.

Was it satire?  Absolutely.  Was it rather ham-handed?  Yes.  But why was it so controversial?  It was so controversial because the right's version of "reality" has gone so far beyond the absurd that it just can not be satirized.  The New Yorker cover stands as proof that, yes, their reality has lapped our satire.

The big difference between the New Yorker cover and David Horsey's parody?

The McCain version is very close to the truth, and it is based on facts rather than lies.

From the first OMG! and WTF! over the New Yorker cover, I have been waiting for the correct measure and context about what is going on. I have been saddened by what I do not see in the arguments of the very wise people I review around the web.

Where are the comparisons and contrasts to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad?

And where is the recognition that the graphic is a 'swiftboat' attack?