Brilliant satire or offensive?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I thought INDY was commenting on the notion that this particular cartoon is too impossibly sophisticated for 50% of Americans to comprehend, not on the general character of The New Yorker magazine.

That's right.
Sure, there's an elitist crowd in journalism, academia and politics (of both parties) that don't "get" much of what passes for life here in America. I looked at their reaction to Tim Russert's death the same way they probably looked at Dale Earnhardt's death several years ago. "Wow, I never knew."

Just because this election started 1&1/2 years ago (back when Hillary & Rudy were the nominees -- McCain was for immigration reform and Obama wasn't wearing a flag pin) and just because we now have three 24 hour cable networks and a legion of bloggers that NEED SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT, does not mean the rest of the country has to be paying that much attention.

It is not "too highbrow," for 50% (no doubt the same half that was so dumb as to vote for GWB... twice) of Americans to comprehend, it's just too unimportant, at this time, for 50% to give a rat's.
 
That's right.
Sure, there's an elitist crowd in journalism, academia and politics (of both parties) that don't "get" much of what passes for life here in America.



see, this i have a problem with.

do not the intelligentsia of the Upper West Side, Dupont Circle, Cambridge, Berkeley, Ann Arbor, etc., not also live "here in America"?

what is it about being anti-intellectual that makes one more American than not?
 
ok, but seriously, do you think it's a good thing that we have such an anti-intellectual movement in this country? the New Yorker is nothing if not outwardly and unapologetically "elite" -- in that the articles are long, sophisticated, highly literate, and meant to be read by a very well educated audience.

does this then disqualify the magazine from having an authentic point of view?

Not at all. Like I mentioned in another thread about popular culture, I bemoan the loss of subtlety and sophistication in our popular culture. Most everything now reduced to "the lowest common denominator" and created with little imagination.

Life, to me, should be like watching an episode of mst3k. Some jokes you get, some go right over your head and you should be equally proud of both.
 
see, this i have a problem with.

do not the intelligentsia of the Upper West Side, Dupont Circle, Cambridge, Berkeley, Ann Arbor, etc., not also live "here in America"?

what is it about being anti-intellectual that makes one more American than not?

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say less American and I said nothing of intelligence. I'm talking about priorities. The daily ins-and-outs of politics are just not a priority with most Americans. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And back to Russert. What is the one thing that was said over and over by everyone who knew him?
"He never lost touch of where he came from." If that is unique than the opposite must be the rule.
 
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say less American and I said nothing of intelligence. I'm talking about priorities. The daily ins-and-outs of politics are just not a priority with most Americans. And there's nothing wrong with that.



i agree with this, but it was this statement ...

that don't "get" much of what passes for life here in America.

... where i thought you were emphasizing the belief that what happens between the coasts -- or at least outside of the urban coastal media latte bubble -- that's authentic American life.

might have misread.
 
cartoon20080715.gif
 
How many layers of irony can there be?

To put this Obama-as-a-Muslim issue behind him for good, the last thing Obama should be doing is getting upset over a cartoon.

I mean, who does that?
 
How many layers of irony can there be?

To put this Obama-as-a-Muslim issue behind him for good, the last thing Obama should be doing is getting upset over a cartoon.

I mean, who does that?

It is a strategy called

working the refs.


They have employed it before.
 
:sigh:

and still, no one quite understands my Cheesecake Factory metaphor.

excuse me, i need to peruse People and sip Red Bull down at the 7-11 while the guy behind the counter goes and fetches my Newports.

Well, I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it. Perhaps I'm not as much of a highbrow elitist as I thought. :hmmm:

I guess I'm confused becaue I enjoy perusing People but I don't like The Cheesecake Factory at all. And the Red Bull/7-11/Newports thing just totally threw me off. . . .

:shrug:

I guess I must have pretentions to elitism then. . .

:wink:
 
That's right.
Sure, there's an elitist crowd in journalism, academia and politics (of both parties) that don't "get" much of what passes for life here in America. I looked at their reaction to Tim Russert's death the same way they probably looked at Dale Earnhardt's death several years ago. "Wow, I never knew."

See this is the argument that I'm just not totally buying. When Dale Earnhardt died, they had a feature about him in TIME magazine--a bigger one than when Russert died, if I recall correctly. It was all over the media and I never got the impression of "Now this Dale fellow? Who is he now? The nation is rising up in collective mourning and we don't know why. Guess we better report this."

To be honest all but the most hard-core racing fans and political news junkies were genuinely torn up about the death of either of these men. "Regular" Americans generally save their grief for people they actually know. I can only think of a few famous figures (JFK comes to mind) that seemed to bring forth genuine sorrow from "regular" Americans when they died. And this buisness of not "getting" life in a partiuclar part of the country. . .it implies that there is a certain kind of "genuine American life" that is reflected by certain parts of the country--"Here in Indiana" for example. (I lived in southwest Michigan and was in and out of Indiana regularly and I never found the people living there to be more or less American). But again this kind of populism has been used in presidential campaigns going all the way back to Andrew Jackson and it was then what it still is and always will be--a lot of nonsense.

Just because this election started 1&1/2 years ago (back when Hillary & Rudy were the nominees -- McCain was for immigration reform and Obama wasn't wearing a flag pin) and just because we now have three 24 hour cable networks and a legion of bloggers that NEED SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT, does not mean the rest of the country has to be paying that much attention.

It is not "too highbrow," for 50% (no doubt the same half that was so dumb as to vote for GWB... twice) of Americans to comprehend, it's just too unimportant, at this time, for 50% to give a rat's.

And this to me is exactly the problem. There are too many people in this country for whom the leadership of our country "is just too unimportant" and who "arent paying attention." There are far too many people, who are otherwise quite intelligent, who don't bother to be informed and thus make ill-informed decisions. And I'm not saying that if everyone "paid attention" they'd all be liberal. I consider you to be one of those who chooses to be "informed" and "pays attention" and obviously you have kept your conservative views.
 
How big a deal is the Obama campaign making of this in actuality? I saw an article on the web about some "furor" but since then the most "furor" I've seen over it has been here in this thread (and even here I'm trying to think of whose been stoking the fires of mortification on this thread. . .and no one is coming to mind).

Has Obama released any more statements since his initial one complaining about the cover?

How much TV coverage is it getting?
 
Went back to the first page. . .didn't seem to be much furor there either.

The strongest thing most people were saying was they didn't think it was that brilliant.

:shrug:
 
How big a deal is the Obama campaign making of this in actuality? I saw an article on the web about some "furor" but since then the most "furor" I've seen over it has been here in this thread (and even here I'm trying to think of whose been stoking the fires of mortification on this thread. . .and no one is coming to mind).

Has Obama released any more statements since his initial one complaining about the cover?

How much TV coverage is it getting?

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, 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,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Obama slams New Yorker portrayal - Yahoo! News
 
“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, 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,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Obama slams New Yorker portrayal - Yahoo! News

Yeah, that was the original statement I'd heard. Any more since then? Because if that single statement bya spokesman is all we've got I don't know that that qualifies as "furor."
 
How big a deal is the Obama campaign making of this in actuality? I saw an article on the web about some "furor" but since then the most "furor" I've seen over it has been here in this thread (and even here I'm trying to think of whose been stoking the fires of mortification on this thread. . .and no one is coming to mind).

Has Obama released any more statements since his initial one complaining about the cover?

How much TV coverage is it getting?

It is on Obama supporting web sites

Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

Arianna has been and is one of Obama's biggest supporters, she led the charge against the Clintons in the primaries, She was here Sunday when Obama raised over a million dollars from 40 donations. By the way, most of Obama money has come from donations over $200.

There seems to be an impression that most of his money is from the under $200

Not that there is anything wrong with us rich folks, just don't believe the hype!
 
I would be quite surprised if there wasn't an article on the Huffington Post on that.
 
t1home.obama.lkl.02.cnn.jpg


Nice picture. Nice flag pin. :up:

Dark suit, white shirt, solid burgundy tie.

I tivoed his speech this morning when that picture was taken.

I thought he was doing a great job of giving the people the right image.

I have gone on interviews, negotiated contracts, given speeches, and been on television.

I have always been keenly aware that my appearance and demeanor will contribute significantly to the success of my endeavor.

Looks like the Obama camp is finally getting the message.


He would not have so many problems with his image, if he had put more thought into how he was presenting himself.
 
t1home.obama.lkl.02.cnn.jpg


Nice picture. Nice flag pin. :up:

Dark suit, white shirt, solid burgundy tie.

I tivoed his speech this morning when that picture was taken.

I thought he was doing a great job of giving the people the right image.

I have gone on interviews, negotiated contracts, given speeches, and been on television.

I have always been keenly aware that my appearance and demeanor will contribute significantly to the success of my endeavor.

Looks like the Obama camp is finally getting the message.


He would not have so many problems with his image, if he had put more thought into how he was presenting himself.




he clean enough for you now?
 
And this to me is exactly the problem. There are too many people in this country for whom the leadership of our country "is just too unimportant" and who "arent paying attention." There are far too many people, who are otherwise quite intelligent, who don't bother to be informed and thus make ill-informed decisions. And I'm not saying that if everyone "paid attention" they'd all be liberal. I consider you to be one of those who chooses to be "informed" and "pays attention" and obviously you have kept your conservative views.

First, glad you realized my earlier post was a joke and simply a reference to some :rolleyes: fun we had a few weeks back. It's only the internet, but you come across as being humble and quite the opposite of elitist.

The key part I mentioned was "at this time." Just like in sports, there is a regular season and then there are the playoffs where the stadiums fill up and the crowds get louder. Though Obama seems to have a head start in that department.
As we build towards the election with the conventions and then debates, then it will be playoff time and Americans will begin to pay more attention to the details.
Compare Fall election voting totals to primary season voting totals if you doubt me.
 
Well, I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it. Perhaps I'm not as much of a highbrow elitist as I thought. :hmmm:

I guess I'm confused becaue I enjoy perusing People but I don't like The Cheesecake Factory at all. And the Red Bull/7-11/Newports thing just totally threw me off. . . .

:shrug:

I guess I must have pretentions to elitism then. . .

:wink:



cheesecake factory = the SUV of chain restaurants

the red bull/newports thing was a stab at a characterization of the "real" Red Stater, not the mom-and-apple-pie the self-styled anti-elitists would like to think of themselves as such.

on that tangent, it seems as if it's the anti-elitists who seem to have the most problems -- it's in the Red States where citizens are more plagued by multiple marriages, multiple baby-daddys/mommas, smoking, STDs, abortions. and, conversely, it's the educated elitists who much more embody the June Cleaver ethics of the 1950s with lower divorces, children born in wedlock, etc.

here:

How can Republicans reclaim their majority and find their voice going forward?
DOUTHAT: We think they should create a pro-family party that doesn't abandon the party's commitment to social conservatism. The GOP should remain--and has to remain--a pro-life party. But a lot of the challenges faced by working-class Americans in the modern economy actually flow from issues of family breakdown. It's interesting. If you look at the marriage rates in the 1950s and 1960s across social classes, the upper-middle class, the working class and the poor all got married and divorced at about the same rate. The all had children in wedlock or out of wedlock at about the same rate. That's changed dramatically over the past 50 years. So upper-middle-class Americans are still behaving like bourgeois, 1950s surburbanites. They're getting married, they have low divorce rates, they're very unlike to have children out of wedlock. That's not true for the working class. What you see in the white working class, in fact, is a trajectory that parallels, in alarming ways, what the black working class went through in terms of collapsing marriage rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates in the 1960s and 1970s. So we argue that that's one of the biggest challenges facing the American working class, and it's at the root of a lot of the inequality and a lot of the economic anxiety that are big factors in this election year.

Stumper : Expertinent: Building a 'Grand New Party'




so, i suppose i'm reacting a bit to the "Obama is an elitist" charge is actually a reflection of anxiety over a huge strata of society that is actually in complete and total crisis right now.

don't know where this takes us, but wanted to explain my damn self. :wink:
 
First, glad you realized my earlier post was a joke and simply a reference to some :rolleyes: fun we had a few weeks back. It's only the internet, but you come across as being humble and quite the opposite of elitist.

I gotcha. :up: Though, I'm really not very humble. :wink:

The key part I mentioned was "at this time." Just like in sports, there is a regular season and then there are the playoffs where the stadiums fill up and the crowds get louder. Though Obama seems to have a head start in that department.
As we build towards the election with the conventions and then debates, then it will be playoff time and Americans will begin to pay more attention to the details.
Compare Fall election voting totals to primary season voting totals if you doubt me.

Fair enough. I always thought the early start to the campaign coverage was a little absurd.
 
Back
Top Bottom