jake [email] said at 2:44 PM 07-14-2008: It's such a bad, bad thing when you and I agree.
I enjoy the New Yorker, but this reeks of smug condescension... There's no context, no title or caption, nothing to give away the fact that they are making fun of the phenomenon, rather than just extending it.
brandon [email] said at 5:29 PM 07-14-2008: It works for me because - it's completely ridiculous - and it is exactly how all the right-wing mouthpieces are characterizing Obama.
Graphically it seems over the top, but you can tune into talk radio any day of the week and listen to pundits make these same characterizations with a straight face, and often, at the same time.
The supreme irony is that these same conservative hags are going to be shit-talking the New Yorker for drawing what they say constantly.
neilbert said at 10:40 PM 07-14-2008: Yeah, you guys don't get it. The New Yorker, The NYT, and many libs are fucking super pist at Obama after he voted for the FISA bill, essentially knifing them in the back. The cover is a straight up dig/swipe at Obama in the guise of something else.
Oh and Brandon, the right-wing, nor the left wing does not give a shit about Obama Bin Laden or his bitch of a wife anymore. With the collapse of Fannie Mae and IndyMac, and Bear Stearns, and our economy as whole, I could give a shit less about Obama's religion. I am actually really concerned about if there is going to be a United States in ten years. I think the recent massive failures in the financial world and impending bankruptcy of fucking GENERAL MOTORS is cause for serious alarm.
There is going to be a time in the very near future where we are going to wake up and the rest of the world is no longer going to either accept the dollar, or that the dollar is going to be removed as the de facto standard for world trade.
Dr. Strangelove ain't going to be able to stop it, and neither is Obama Bin Laden.
Fuck, both of them were pandering to the racist organization La Raza ("The Race") today in order to try and get the Hispanic/Latino vote.
josh [email] said at 10:48 PM 07-14-2008: hasnt general motors been heading for bankruptcy for like 20 years now? its an enevitable decline, so i dont see why that particular "warning sign" is bothering you.
josh [email] said at 10:50 PM 07-14-2008: "that the dollar is going to be removed as the de facto standard for world trade."
this is probably true.... OMG! one day we will not be the most powerful nation in the world anymore?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! so what? this has happened to other nations before.... and i'm sure England and France and Spain are all still decent places to live and raise a family, etc. Even if the dollar isn't the standard for world trade, the US will still be around.
cullen stalin said at 12:49 AM 07-15-2008: Huh?! If the "libs" were pissed at Obama and trying to "swipe" him in retribution for signing off on government spying, why would they do so by ascribing Leftist tendencies towards him?
Also, that's really clever how you demonstrated the similarity between the names "Osama" and "Obama." I had never thought of that before, nor have my fifth-grade classmates.
kiche [email] said at 9:17 AM 07-15-2008: neither the new yorker nor the nyt are "liberal" magazines. i use liberal here to mean left wing in any sense of the term. if you're using "liberal" in the intentionally confusing terminology to mean "neoliberal" better known in the u.s. as "neoconservatism" the ideology that gw bush and dick cheney subscribe to, then well i guess that at least the nyt would be "liberal" in that sense of the word. christ, the nyt's star is thomas friedman. how the fuck can anyone claim that the nyt is a left wing magazine?
jake [email] said at 8:08 PM 07-15-2008: Kiche, I read both. The politics are different.
Just like liberalism is different than leftism, and neoliberalism is very different than neoconservatism. You may dislike them equally (I loathe the latter more, myself) but they are quite different.
kiche [email] said at 9:46 AM 07-16-2008: ok jake, up above you say to me that the nyt is not the new yorker. please point out to me where i said it was. i don't even think neil said it was. also, a discussion of the new yorker's "politics" seems rather moot because it's a literary/cultural magazine. we might as well be talking about the politics of entertainment weekly. i kid. a little. also, not everyone who writes for the new yorker is "left wing" or "liberal".
also, the term "liberal" is used as short hand for "left wing" in the u.s. you can't ignore this. and ignoring this definition makes you less proficient with american english.
also, people who are specifically "liberal" in the u.s. are a subset of the left. moderate left to be sure, but still left.
as for the neoconservative vs. neoliberal "fight". well lets go to wikipedia.
first thing you'll notice is to the right of the page is a panel that says, "Part of the series on Neoliberalism". directly below that it says, "Movements" with a list underneath it. second on that list is neoconservatism.
Many "neoliberals" have been defined as neoconservatives and vice versa. But they are poles apart. The founder of American neoconservatism, Irving Kristol explained that Neoconservatives are not libertarian in any sense, "Neo-cons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the State"[44]. In fact the Bush administration has increased federal spending more than Lyndon Johnson did.
true, milton friedman would be howling; but he's dead. why don't we go to one of the pre-eminent neoliberals of today? thomas friedman. he wants expanded government, he backed the war in iraq. the main difference between neoliberals and neoconservatives in 2008 seems to be more of temperment than ideology or policy.
jake [email] said at 8:06 PM 07-17-2008: Neoconservatives advocate a rollback of liberal values. Neoliberals have so much faith in the liberalizing virtues of the market that they mostly don't fret over creeping corporate fascism.
Neoconservatives are delighted to see foreign aid become a handmaiden of abstinence education. Neoliberals would prefer that foreign aid be the lever for open markets.
there's plenty of overlap and mess, but they're by no means the same.
As for the NYT/New Yorker, you lumped them together. I wasn't refuting your entire statement, just adding a clarification.
kiche [email] said at 11:11 PM 07-17-2008: Neoconservatives advocate a rollback of liberal values. Neoliberals have so much faith in the liberalizing virtues of the market that they mostly don't fret over creeping corporate fascism.
ummm... not really jake. find a neoconservative for me that thinks we need to reinstate prayer in schools. or wants to go back to historic racial attitudes. on the flip side, find a neo liberal for me who champions gay marriage. or sings the praises of real multiculturalism (not restaurant multiculturalism). maybe you can find people from the u.k. who fall outside these parameters. but here in the good old u.s. of a. the difference is more one of attitude than real substance. just like the difference between fox and cnn.
Neoconservatives are delighted to see foreign aid become a handmaiden of abstinence education. Neoliberals would prefer that foreign aid be the lever for open markets.
ummm... not really. are you telling me the kristols, kagans and kristoffs are happy to see the u.s. foreign aid programs become nothing more than the handmaiden of fundamentalist christian paleocons? get real. also, i don't here a lot of bitching from the likes of thomas friedman and the nyt neoliberals about this. the most negative reaction you get is no more than a little miffed. neither side seems to think that it is really important, though.
there's plenty of overlap and mess, but they're by no means the same.
yeah, i mean they have different attitudes and carry themselves differently, and have completely different styles.
on substance and policy, though... half a dozen of one, six of the other...
As for the NYT/New Yorker, you lumped them together.
no i did not. i specifically differentiated between the two. please take another look at what i said. i was VERY clear about the differences between the two. if you can quote me and show how i conflated the two, i would appreciate being corrected.
jake [email] said at 8:19 PM 07-21-2008: You did lump them together, actually. Neilbert did it first; then you mentioned both of them together, and went on to make statements about the NYT... but still in a thread about the cover of the New Yorker.
I see the distinction you put in there, but it's a very qualified one, and in the same paragraph you're equating leftism with liberalism... which just isn't how I see it.
kiche [email] said at 9:22 AM 07-22-2008: You did lump them together, actually.
i said, "neither the new yorker nor the nyt..." then i went on to draw a clear distinction between them. i guess that could be considered "lumping together" in the loosest possible use of the term. as in everything ever mentioned on killoggs is lumped together. but that's just sophistry.
Neilbert did it
reading above, i can see you are right about this.
I see the distinction you put in there, but it's a very qualified one
no it's not. i called the nyt a neoconservative publication and the new yorker a cultural publication. that's nowhere near saying they are the same thing.
and in the same paragraph you're equating leftism with liberalism
because in american english, "liberalism" is used to mean "left wing". and conservatism is used to mean "right wing". further more a specific branch of the modern moderate american left has evolved into something that can be termed "liberalism".
kiche [email] said at 9:31 AM 07-15-2008: the major problem with this picture is that it does fail as satire. this is simply a picture of what conservatives say every day on talk radio, foxnews and their periodicals. the picture neither exaggerates nor mocks their assertions.
here's the online editor of the national review (the flagship magazine of the conservative movement) on the new yorker cover:
What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. Roman Genn could do wonders with that concept.
the major problem is that the new yorker isn't a political magazine. the artist tried to make a political statement (obviously) but because it was for a nonpolitical magazine he tried to be oblique about it. so we are just left with a picture of what the republican party says every day.
but then again, it's become near impossible to satirize these people.
julie [email] said at 12:15 PM 07-15-2008: Sure it's offensive, but that's the point: so is the invective that conservative blowhards are spewing about Obama. DUH! This doesn't cross any kind of line, for me. Anyone running for office should expect the worst kind of ridicule, no one is unassailable.
None of you would be complaining if this cover was a picture of McCain bombing an abortion clinic while drilling in Alaska for oil with a POW-MIA flag around his shoulders. Chillax, America. And nut up.
kiche [email] said at 12:22 PM 07-15-2008: except julie, most people don't believe that about mccain.
i don't have a problem with the above cover, because it's an accurate portrayal of what the republican party is saying about obama.
also, i eagerly await the new yorker's cover where they portray mccain as a manchurian candidate who is betraying his pow brothers who are still in vietnam.
when do you think that cover is coming? (that's not a rhetorical question)
julie [email] said at 6:31 PM 07-15-2008: Who cares if that cover never comes? The New Yorker never claimed they were going to be fair and always represent both sides of the issue. When you have your own magazine you can put whatever YOU want on the cover, without having to make excuses for it. Or running an opposing image the following week.
jake [email] said at 8:09 PM 07-17-2008: It's not offensive because it goes too far. It's offensive because it's a touchy subject and it fails to be funny.
I agree that no topic is too sacred for a good joke, but some topics are too sensitive for bad jokes, or even worse, incomplete jokes.
kiche [email] said at 10:59 PM 07-17-2008: i don't think it's offensive. i think the people who really say this shit are offensive and we need to shine a light on them spreading these racist rumors.
brandon [email] said at 3:45 PM 07-15-2008: Exactly, I do agree with Kiche, it fails because it needs more fangs and gore, because it really is just a ho-hum translation of the kind of vituperation that passes as political discourse from the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the fabulously off-kilter Mark Levin. All of them are talking about this. As a matter of fact they can't stop talking about it, they inject Obama into the mortgage meltdown and Afghanistan and everything in between despite your bizarre assertion to the contrary. They really think he's the antichrist - that he's black is just the ultimate insult, which is telling in Limbaugh's case, considering how wide-flung he flew his racist colors during his brief stint as an NFL commentator. I mean, these are people that have repeatedly brought up Martin Luther King's sexual proclivities and contributions as an object of public debate and have repeatedly bashed almost all black leaders for years regardless of whether or not they deserve it simply because the fact of their race requires their condemnation, and yet somehow they're not racist? Horseshit. A black President of the United States is terrifying to the Right, because it will reveal their racist tendencies. Look for the election to be a silent referendum on race - or maybe just a full-blown screaming match - and that's why I'm calling this election for McCain. White society is too racist, too xenophobic to consider a better candidate like Obama over some doddering nursing home escapee.
kiche [email] said at 4:15 PM 07-15-2008: it fails, but it doesn't fail because of lack of trying or any inherent problem with what it is. it fails because it's trying to satarize something you can't satarize.
take another look at the picture. how much more over the top could it be? it's already in outer space. the thing is, that's what republican party mouth pieces are really saying.
i guess the new yorker could have put the foxnews logo in the corner or had rush limbaugh imagining it...
i think obama will win. not because white people (or people in general) aren't racist; it's because the type of racism presently eminating from the republican party is of such a toxic substance that it will backfire. i could be wrong about this though.
if it doesn't work, expect this shit to get more hysterical and over the top.
josh [email] said at 12:15 PM 07-23-2008: i love how in that posting, the author is like "bush didnt complain about any of THESE images that satirize him! obama is a crybaby!" and then links to a bunch of bad photoshops that obviously come from forums... a far cry from the cover of the new yorker.
julie [email] said at 6:33 PM 07-15-2008: it fails because it's trying to satarize something you can't satarize. I respectfully disagree, because there is nothing so sacred that it shouldn't be satirized. If you don't buy this, I have a painting of christ made of elephant poo to sell you.
neilbert said at 10:58 PM 07-22-2008: Just as I thought. A week later and nobody gives a shit anymore about the "satire" cartoon from the New Yorker. I am starting to begin to think that we in this information age are so overloaded that pretty much anyone can say, or print anything. Sure, there will be outrage initially and for a short while after an offending article is published, but it will be totally forgotten in a week.
julie [email] said at 4:33 PM 07-23-2008: I thought it was a reference to the fact that she's hooked on prescription painkillers... isn't this the vicious rumor that the liberal media is spreading about her? If not, then I just started it. Spread away.
