BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

The New Yorker: Unfunny Since 1925

MONDAY JULY 14 2008 12:00 PM

Submitted by crispy. Edited By crispy.

TAGS: The New Yorker, Obama, terrorist, Muslim

The New Yorker magazine is probably best known for its cartoons which never seem to make any sense and are rarely funny ... kind of like TheCoolerKing*.

Their latest cover, in an attempt for humor or satire or relevance or attention, portrays Barack and Michelle Obama in an illustration featuring "fantastical images" that left the Obama camp fantastically offended.



The image, drawn by Barry Blitt and featured on the front cover of this week's New Yorker, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional Muslim dress, while his wife, Michelle, is dressed in combat trousers and carrying a machine-gun.

The couple are shown standing in the Oval Office, greeting one another with a "fist bump", with an American flag burning in the fireplace, and a portrait of Osama Bin Laden on the wall.


I'm sure it seemed like a great idea at the time, but in today's politically correct society they had to have expected the fallout.

The New Yorker said the cover, called "The Politics of Fear", was a critique of unfounded allegations that have tried to portray Mr Obama, a Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the statement said.

The portrayal of the Obamas "fist-bumping" one another was a reference to a campaign rally in St Paul, Minnesota, back in June, at which the couple were seen to "fist-bump", an action described by one Fox News commentator as a "terrorist fist-jab".

[...]

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the cartoon, saying: ""The New Yorker may think... that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create, but most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."


Of course, it's obviously satirical to anyone with a brain in their head, but remember that we're talking about America here ... a country whose current president wouldn't know satire from a ham sandwich.

How many people are going to totally miss the true point of the cartoon and only see what is portrayed within? For how many people (West Virginia, I'm looking at you!) is this going to be a confirmation of all of their fears rather that an attempt to mock them?

Most importantly, how many copies above current circulation is this thing going to sell before the inevitable apology and removal?

Get it fresh from the newsstands, folks, and stash it away for a couple of years when it'll probably fetch a pretty penny on eBay.


*That was crispy's attempt at satire.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 06:50 PM

So I'm guessing the conversation has been officially derailed?

Chainlink

Chainlink

Christmas Island
August 2005

JUL 14, 2008 06:50 PM

PointBlank said:
I love that the "you're a crybaby" guy did the same exact thing that caused him to call FTR a crybaby and went anon. Too funny.





Priceless.

crispy

crispy

NEWSWIRE

Philadelphia, PA

JUL 14, 2008 07:04 PM

Tiwaz said:
So I'm guessing the conversation has been officially derailed?


Clearly, the terrorists have won.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 07:05 PM

crispy said:

Tiwaz said:
So I'm guessing the conversation has been officially derailed?


Clearly, the terrorists have won.


*fist bump*

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 07:11 PM

crispy said:

Tiwaz said:
So I'm guessing the conversation has been officially derailed?


Clearly, the terrorists have won.



Sick

Sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

JUL 14, 2008 07:24 PM

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were programmed by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.





You mean the only way to tell other than the obvious fact that that mess wasn't written by a professional writer? Or even someone with a basic knowledge of grammar and spelling?

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUL 14, 2008 07:29 PM

FearTheReaper said:
But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.


For someone who "doesn't post here anymore," you sure seem to...well...post a lot. Here's a tip: going public, posting, and then going anonymous again doesn't count as "not posting." In order to "not post" you have to, you know, not post.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUL 14, 2008 07:34 PM

scylis said:

FearTheReaper said:
But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.



but you do still post here.

FAIL.


Shit. Beaten by an hour and a half. That's what I get for not reading the middle pages before I post.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUL 14, 2008 08:00 PM

Sick said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were programmed by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.





You mean the only way to tell other than the obvious fact that that mess wasn't written by a professional writer? Or even someone with a basic knowledge of grammar and spelling?



My dad is college educated and intelligent, but some of the stuff he finds, some of the e-mails he gets (and forwards to me) on the internet is almost treated as gospel. Seems to be a trend among baby boomers (I hate to generalize) and I don't get it. It's like their bullshit detector fails to filter through e-mails.

squee_

squee_

Grand Marais, MN
September 2004

JUL 14, 2008 09:12 PM

_kungfoo_ said:

Sick said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were programmed by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.





You mean the only way to tell other than the obvious fact that that mess wasn't written by a professional writer? Or even someone with a basic knowledge of grammar and spelling?



My dad is college educated and intelligent, but some of the stuff he finds, some of the e-mails he gets (and forwards to me) on the internet is almost treated as gospel. Seems to be a trend among baby boomers (I hate to generalize) and I don't get it. It's like their bullshit detector fails to filter through e-mails.



My dad is the same way. And he got the same email FTR's dad did, or one very similar. We actually had an argument about it. He's pretty right wing and even though I'm only a slightly left leaning moderate, he thinks I'm a communist. So convincing him that this wasn't real was quite an uphill battle. He kept going on about liberal bias and claiming that liberals never want to hear the truth. whatever

Speaking of emails, my mom received an email about Obama being the Anti-Christ. I was curious about it and googled Obama and Anti-Christ and could not believe how much ignorant crap was out there about it. How the fuck do people come up with this shit? surreal

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 09:21 PM

Meritocracy anyone?

Rude_Ruca

Rude_Ruca

I'm lost
December 2004

JUL 15, 2008 04:36 AM

_kungfoo_ said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Sick said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.
[spoiler]
ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were programmed by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.





SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Sick said:You mean the only way to tell other than the obvious fact that that mess wasn't written by a professional writer? Or even someone with a basic knowledge of grammar and spelling?



My dad is college educated and intelligent, but some of the stuff he finds, some of the e-mails he gets (and forwards to me) on the internet is almost treated as gospel. Seems to be a trend among baby boomers (I hate to generalize) and I don't get it. It's like their bullshit detector fails to filter through e-mails.



Actually, yeah, I am going to have to sound off on this for a moment, too. I have a lot of respect for my BF's dad being that he is a retired army general and all, but, and especially as a conservative, I find myself having to dispel a lot of the content in the emails that are circulated amongst his group of folks (all the same age group/former military personnel). And, these emails I am referring to are a lot of the misinformation that has been fabricated against Obama. While I certainly share the sentiment that there has been a lot of questionable information uncovered about the guy over the course of the last year, I still think, and have to get myself in check a few times on some issues as well, that not voting for him should be based on the facts, not the fairy tales... whatever

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JUL 15, 2008 04:42 AM

Well I guess this was inevitable...
zoom image

Still though, unlike the McCain cover here, there are essentially no accuracies in the Obama cover (even after a retrospective on the merits of satire, I still find the New Yorker cover tasteless and offensive). Are we over reacting? I say no. If their intent was to highlight the obscene mischaracterization Obama has been subjected to then they should have satirized the neanderthals who believe the crap and the prevaricating shills that sell it.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUL 15, 2008 05:43 AM

I'm actually marginally offended by the National Review cover as well, not because I like McCain but rather because the perception of the elderly as feeble and bumbling overgrown toddlers bothers me a great deal.

Never mind the fact that fears of Clinton dashing Obama's chances were alarmist to begin with, and have since been more or less dispelled.

And why is something quintessentially American always burning in a fireplace?

MisterEnrolled

MisterEnrolled

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 15, 2008 08:00 AM

Hooraydiation said:
And why is something quintessentially American always burning in a fireplace?


That's the American Way.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Ville Valo of HIM
SuicideGirls Interview: Mister Cartoon:  Tattoo Entrepreneur
SuicideGirls Interview: Laura Dern