A so-called satirical cover of the New Yorker magazine, depicting Barack Obama as a Muslim and his wife as an armed terrorist, has created a huge storm among the media, politicians and religious leaders.
While the publication tries to justify it as a reflection of right-wing views of Obama, it is at best a stretch, with the drawing of Michelle as a gun toting moll so removed from reality it makes a mockery of any pretension to satire.
Needless to say it has amused neither the Democrats nor the Republican camp.
As we saw with the Danish cartoons and a Teddy Bear named Muhammed the issue went right to the core of Islamic beliefs. Here we are not dealing with the rights covering freedom of speech or expression as opposed to the obligation to respect religion but rather ridiculous sensationalism and poor taste posing as satire.
The saddest part of the whole exercise is that the editor and staff of the New Yorker could never, in their wildest dreams, have dreamed that they would get a worldwide response such as this. Regardless of how this debate pans out this issue of their magazine will be deemed a roaring success.
Translate that into editors and staff around the world trying to figure out how low they have to go to attract the same sort of attention.
In Australia the proverbial is hitting the fan as critics try to figure out whether a picture of a naked young girl on the front cover of a leading arts journal Art Monthly, Australia is in fact art or abuse.
In many countries around the world if they caught you with pictures like the one referred to, on your computer, you would be arrested.
In both cases the publication’s representation that they comprise satire or art respectively, could just as easily be construed as pornography or child abuse in the case of the Australian and an attempt by the New Yorker to incite religious hatred.
Where do you even begin to draw the lines on issues such as these? Even if you could would it be possible to ban and then enforce that prohibition on the internet? If it is or becomes possible, would it be desirable?
In an age where communication has become so advanced as to offer anything from cellphone internet to television, that allows you to rewind live action, and so fast that a press release in Russia can be read in Brazil within seconds, freedom of speech and expression and the controls we place on it become issues of vital importance.
The trick is finding the balance between encouraging people to express themselves while implementing measures to ensure that they do it responsibly.
Getting them to agree where one ends and the other starts is one of the major problems. Items are often going out worldwide and what constitutes “responsible” may well depend on where you are. What is art in Australia might well be pornography in Pakistan.
In terms of political free speech any attempt to curb the media goes much further than just the issue of freedom of speech or expression. It deals with removing the public’s safeguards against government tyranny, incompetence and corruption.
While the ANC hop from foot to foot about safeguarding media freedom they might want to bear in mind that Polokwane could never have happened under a Zimbabwean type media. All that stood between Zuma and engineered meltdown was the relentless pressure from the press to avoid the government using the organs of state as a political tool.
If that had been blocked then concerns about protecting individual dignity and privacy would have been replaced with “whatever happened to Jacob Zuma?” Perhaps JZ and the party might want to have a look across the Zimbabwean border and consider the plight of Morgan Tsvangirai and how this was handled by their press. In turn, should Mbeki wish to make a case for his return, how would his proponents put their case across? Would they be afforded the same opportunity or just be stifled along with the press?
If the ANC intend starting their own newspaper it might be in their own interest to consider what would happen if a rogue element of the party came to control the party, the country and the machinery of the press.
Instead of Zuma — here read candidate of choice — you would get a Mugabe, the candidate chosen for you and without any way of checking whether this is fact or engineering.
Don’t let nonsense about the press being insensitive to people’s feelings when they are incompetent or corrupt cloud your judgement. The protection of the people of this country, including the politicians, depends on the public’s right to be kept informed. In many cases that’s all that’s left between them and Armageddon.
Think!
Traps,
Tiny minds cannot cope with satire.
You write it is “poor taste posing as satire”. When did “poor taste” pose as anything else?
How conversant are you with the work of Steadman and Scarfe?
BL If I said I had an in-depth knowledge of either I’d be BSing you.
I think it’s less a monster than we think it is in terms of the ‘poor taste’ charge. Cartoonists and satirists face this issue every single day and 99% of the time the good ones fall on the right side of the tracks. If you cringe when you see a decent cartoonist’s take on something, I think you’re supposed to first ask if it’s exposed something nasty in yourself or if it’s just itself nasty. Think that’s what they tried to do with this one, if I give them the benefit of the doubt. In which case they’ve failed.
That said, it’s completely bloody awful. What were they thinking? Of course we could always swing the other way and assume that they knew it was the wrong side of bad taste and felt that the massive amount of interest it would generate would be a net benefit to them. In which case they’ve succeeded – when was the last time you felt need to comment on this publication’s stuff…or even read it?
Traps,
You have to compare apples with apples old son.
To slander the prophet Mohammed (Peace be Upon Him) and having a go at Barack Hussein Obama, who does have a Muslim name, is so not the same thing. Barack is smooth talking Slamo who says he’s a Christian.
Now the Slamos all smile, ’cause the thought of the the Infidels voting a Slamo into power is hilarious bru.
That’s all. It is funny.
Now the little girl sitting on a rock looking straight at the camera, is borderline pedophilia. She has no place there. Even if it was a 50/50 call, keep the little girls clothes on bru.
I am of the opinion the cartoon concerned is in bad taste as the agreed even by John McCain’s camp. As a South African I can readily see the underlying racism or prejudice in it. Racists are doing whatever they can to disfigure the image and to undermine the integrity of Obama.
It is also not sensitive to the Middle East descedants.
Traps,
Non PC satire is virtually illegal in South Africa. Bear in mind that your reactions are circumscribed by the culture you inhabit.
As a result, you label the cartoon “crap” “ridiculous sensationalism” and “poor taste”.
Before you diss the cartoon, it is worth remembering that the New Yorker has a reputation for publishing the best work in the entire universe.
The debate over whether nudity is art or pornography will go on for ever. Showing a picture of a young girl on the front cover of any publication is not on in my book. Been an “arts” journal is no exception it is still placed on shelves for public display.
For the New Yorker to depict Barack Obama the way they did is lunacy. Do these people not learn? They make a mockery of common sense and deserve whatever ridicule comes their way.
Any attempt at religious satire is foolish no matter if it is top draw stuff or in poor taste. There will always be someone who will take offence and the repercussions can be extreme.
Lets face it.. the cartoon has been lurking in the subconscious of many Americans. That’s why it cannot be dismissed as “crap”.
Of course, satirists like to pun and a US President named “Obama” and “Hussein” is extremely funny even if the PC thought police want to ban the Osama/Saddam ironies.
It is moreover 100% legitimate since both Michelle and Barack have for years lapped up Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American diatribes. Barack only disowned Wright when he realized his “audacity to hope” to become President might soon become a reality.
BL which non PC satire is illegal in South Africa?
“As a result”…is illogical. How does that follow the fact non PC satire is illegal (if this is the case)?
New Yorker has this reputation where and with whom. If you Google this incident the opinion is split as to the merits of the cover and the publication.
Of interest is the view of Michael Bloomberg who is less than impressed.
Traps for once i think you are talking crap, there have been probably hundreds (thousands??) of ‘bad taste’ satire against Bush (+ his family) and other mainly conservative politicians, now it is against a Black and liberal it is crap!! You are either showing a racist side (don’t bad mouth Blacks) or an intolerant liberal side – take your pick.
Obama is adult enough to shrug it off and gain/learn from it.
Brent
Traps:
I don’t see why you made a big deal about that painting. Nothing vital was portrayed so it was not porn.
Whether it was art or not let the artists decide!
Fact is Obama had a muslim extremist upbringing. Its a fact. There are photos of him in the garb with the AK. He later became an extremist Black nationist christian. Is it now non-PC to caricature the truth?
Have muslims now joined jews as untouchables, about whom no humour is allowed in the PC world?
I guess only whites can be targetted now. Isnt that the objective of PC?
So Americans have bad taste? They are not the only ones. Freedom of Expression allows bad taste.
The interesting thing about the little girl’s photo is that it was taken by her mother, not by her father. I think women see a beautiful little girl, but men see something different – for obvious reasons.
Traps,
I wrote “virtually illegal”.
Is there any political satire on the SABC?
Trapido,
The ANC Youth league leader was represented as a baboon (in a reversed Darwinian fashion) by Zapiro.
Fair Play?
To criticize the New Yorker for the cover is like condemning the Friends of JZ website for posting a Zapiro cartoon depicting JZ with a shower affixed to his cranium.
Anyone with the faintest knowledge of the New Yorker’s editorial position could not for one second take the cover as intended to suggest that Obama and Michelle are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.
The magazine is unabashedly pro-Democrat.
I did not “get” the satire in this cartoon, to me it looked as if the artist wanted to use cheap scare tactics that resonate with the WASP American public. But what do I know.
I cannot imagine what it must be like to be Muslim and live the USA. If the thought of a president even vaguely linked to Islam is the only reason not to vote for him, how shallow is the electorate?
The New Yorker is better than this. This was really just in bad taste. Satire is a different thing altogether. Zapiro is satire. This wasn’t even beginning to satirize the Republican position at all. Barack Obama’s differences with the Republicans have everything to do with political opinions of how the world should work not the crass bull they are throwing with their so-called satirical cartoon.
Bad taste coupled with bad manners is increasing at a rapid rate. People don’t even know where to draw the line anymore. And they call it satire to justify it. That is just such a David Bullard moment of the New Yorker.
Bonginkosi,
You write:
“Bad taste coupled with bad manners is increasing at a rapid rate. People don’t even know where to draw the line anymore.”
Oh yes, the good old days. Before The Beatles and Rock and Roll.
When was the time when cartoonists knew where “to draw the line”?
Traps,
I am surprised that you don’t knoiw Scarfe and Steadman. Weren’t you in the UK for a number of years? Don’t you ever go to second hand book-shops?
Does Barack Osama have a sense of humour??..
“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.
New Yorker editor David Remnick seemed shocked by the backlash.
“Our cover … combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are,” he said in a statement.
“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 the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” Remnick said.
May we mock, Barack?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Dear Trapido,
I know already that some of your ordinarily noisy choristers (including the ordinarily temperamental elderly of Thought Leader, who has a worring penchant for manipulatively demanding respect and reverence from younger commentators, which she has yet to earn) will shout this down, but let me say it, anyway!
It’s great that a cartoon of this nature got published so as to catch those ordinarily hypocritical communities in the United States who have been projecting their country as completely free from racial prejudice. In fact, many pale-skinned Americans went as far as feigning astonishment at hearing the crudely expressed anti-black sentiments by the likes of Terre Blanche and right wing elements in South Africa – as if the racial stereotyping (as exemplified by the distasteful caricature of Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle) were non-existent in the US. Now, we have ample proof that there indeed are elements within the American communities who would stop at nothing to thwart the political ascendancy of a leader of African heritage – as this ascendancy may (at least, to them), if not nipped in the bud, be indicative of an acknowledgement that the pale-skinned leaders have not done a rosy job in the White House. Is it surprising that the first person who started and augmented all this racial stereotyping (decrying the fact that Obama enjoyed support from the African American audience, and betting that he’d fail to win support from the pale-skinned, middle-class, voting populace owing to his [Obama's] Africanness) was the one and the only Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton? And now we have to pretend to be shocked when caricatures of this nature are featured in an expectedly intense political race for the White House? Come on, guys, this is America that we are talking about!
To me, this whole Obama-caricature (and the public reaction to it) is reminiscent to the equally embarrassing situation the South African pale-skinned populace woke up to one fateful day, when four morally bankrupt lunatics at the University of Free State (UFS) subjected the four dark-skinned university employees (old enough to be their parents, mind you!) to an inherently humiliating mock initiation – the magnitude of which was denied, of course, by those [like Thought Leader's comedians: AMAMUSED/AMAUSED/AMUSED READER, Consulting Engineer, et al.] who construed the blatantly racially motivated act of the four UFS students as simply a childish act that does not run in the crevices of the (four) young nincompoops. In fact, the meek rationalizations that pervaded the political discourse in the South African landscape (by mostly our pale-skinned compatriots) masked a highly corrosive embarrassment that served both to negate the view of the piety of the pale-skinned race and delegitimate the oft-inculcated notion that the pale-skinned youngsters in South Africa are being wrongly punished (through Affirmative Action, BEE or BBBEE) for the sins of their forefathers that they know little about.
Yet amidst that concerted inculcation of the above idea, are concerted calls by the Cheerleaders of Thought Leader (also shared by many, I guess) that the children of the Zimbabwean leaders – some of whom are studying abroad – need to be sent packing, just to punish them for the sins of their fathers.
What a rank duplicity!
The Obama caricature is as embarrassing to the general American pale-skinned population as the UFS incident was embarrassing to SA’s ordinarily hypocritical community.
And for that, I regard the caricature (as in bad taste as it is) as a miraculous blessing in disguise.
Period!
NZS you and the panel will find this article on U.S race relations very interesting.
It’s the headline piece in today’s New York Times :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16poll.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216210261-cT7JaDNPykQQ5x95TgxNmw
Today in the New York Times :
Poll Finds Obama’s Run Isn’t Closing Divide on Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Published: July 16, 2008
Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans’ perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.
Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.
The survey suggests that even as the nation crosses a racial threshold when it comes to politics — Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas — many of the racial patterns in society remain unchanged in recent years.
Indeed, the poll showed markedly little change in the racial components of people’s daily lives since 2000, when The Times examined race relations in an extensive series of articles called “How Race Is Lived in America.”
As it was eight years ago, few Americans have regular contact with people of other races, and few say their own workplaces or their own neighborhoods are integrated. In this latest poll, over 40 percent of blacks said they believed they had been stopped by the police because of their race, the same figure as eight years ago; 7 percent of whites said the same thing.
Nearly 70 percent of blacks said they had encountered a specific instance of discrimination based on their race, compared with 62 percent in 2000; 26 percent of whites said they had been the victim of racial discrimination. (Over 50 percent of Hispanics said they had been the victim of racial discrimination.)
And when asked whether blacks or whites had a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society, 64 percent of black respondents said that whites did. That figure was slightly higher even than the 57 percent of blacks who said so in a 2000 poll by The Times. And the number of blacks who described racial conditions as generally bad in this survey was almost identical to poll responses in 2000 and 1990.
“Basically it’s the same old problem, the desire for power,” Macie Mitchell, a Pennsylvania Democrat from Erie County, who is black, said in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. “People get so obsessed with power and don’t want to share it. There are people who are not used to blacks being on top.”
White perceptions, by contrast, improved markedly from 1990 to 2000, but have remained steady since. This month’s poll found that 55 percent of whites said race relations were good, almost double the figure for blacks.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted July 7-14 with 1,796 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. In an effort to measure views of different races, the survey included larger-than-usual minority samples — 297 blacks and 246 Hispanics — with a margin of sampling error of six percentage points for each subgroup.
Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll.
Black voters were far more likely than whites to say that Mr. Obama cares about the needs and problems of people like them, and more likely to describe him as patriotic. Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes. And about half of black voters said race relations would improve in an Obama administration, compared with 29 percent of whites.
About 40 percent of blacks said that Mr. McCain, if elected president, would favor whites over blacks should he win the election.
There was even racial dissension over Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58 percent of black voters, compared with 24 percent of white voters.
Among black voters, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, Mr. Obama draws support from 89 percent, compared with 2 percent for Mr. McCain. Among whites, Mr. Obama has 37 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for Mr. McCain.
After a Democratic primary season in which Mr. Obama had difficulty competing for Hispanic votes against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain among Hispanic voters in the likely general election matchup by 62 to 23 percent. Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by more than half of Hispanic Americans, compared with Mr. McCain, whose favorability rating is just under one-quarter. By significant margins, these voters believe that Mr. Obama will do a better job of dealing with immigration; Mr. McCain has been trying to distance himself from Republicans who have advocated a tough policy on permitting illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
Over all, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain among all registered voters by 45 percent to 39 percent.
White voters, much more so than black voters, are divided in their political loyalties. Mr. Obama draws significant support among white Democrats. Yet still, among just Democrats, blacks were more apt than whites in the poll to express positive views of Mr. Obama across a range of questions. For example, black Democrats were 24 points more likely than white Democrats to have a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama.
“I don’t like some of his policies, like on energy,” said Bob Beidelman, 69, a white Democrat from York, Pa., about Mr. Obama. “Also I don’t like statements his wife made. She seems like a spoiled brat to me.”
He added: “I’m one of those white people who clings to guns and the Bible, and those things that Barack said kind of turned me off,” he said. “This isn’t a black and white thing. If a conservative African-American like former Congressman J. C. Watts was running, I’d have bumper stickers plastered all over my car supporting him.”
The survey found extensive excitement among African-Americans about the prospect of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, a factor that could prove important in pushing voter turnout. The poll found that 72 percent of black voters said they expected Mr. Obama to win.
The high levels of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama among black Americans suggested that there was less of a divide among them about his candidacy than suggested by occasional tension among black leaders. Last week, Mr. Obama was criticized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson as “talking down to black people” by going before black audiences and urging parents to take more responsibility for their children.
“He’s got all these enthusiastic young people working for him,” said James Wilson, 75, a property manager from Philadelphia who is black. “I’m a person who would never give money and they called on the phone and got me to give.”
The poll found that Mr. McCain is yoked to the legacy of President Bush — majorities believe that Mr. McCain, as president, would continue Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq and on the economy. Mr. Bush’s approval rating on the economy is as low as it has been in his presidency, 20 percent; and even while there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think the war is going well, there has been no change in the significantly large number of people who think it was a mistake to have invaded.
BL – Of course you can mock Obama. You can mock whoever you like. I think the cover was crap. That doesn’t mean you guys aren’t entitled to appreciate it.
BTW any thoughts on the Australian cover? Nobody has commented.
Abdu Johnstone – The cartoon as a whole (Zapiro should answer for himself)is in my opinion showing that the ANCYL (as a whole) is evolving in reverse politically. Instead of the progressive ideology of eg Madiba we are getting hate speech and war talk.
That said I don’t believe the cartoon figures used by Zapiro to get his message accross were appropriate within our racial climate.
Again that is just my opinion.
Traps,
Might have been worth mentioning, once again, that you are backing Osama for President. It might help to explain why you labelled the cartoon “crap.”
Traps,
“Crap” is a lazy response.
One for BL : Maureen Dowd – New York Times : Can we mock Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
BL :
May We Mock, Barack?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 16, 2008
WASHINGTON
When I interviewed Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for Rolling Stone a couple years ago, I wondered what Barack Obama would mean for them.
“It seems like a President Obama would be harder to make fun of than these guys,” I said.
“Are you kidding me?” Stewart scoffed.
Then he and Colbert both said at the same time: “His dad was a goat-herder!”
When I noted that Obama, in his memoir, had revealed that he had done some pot, booze and “maybe a little blow,” the two comedians began riffing about the dapper senator’s familiarity with drug slang.
Colbert: Wow, that’s a very street way of putting it. ‘A little blow.’
Stewart: A little bit of the white rabbit.
Colbert: ‘Yeah, I packed a cocktail straw of cocaine and had a prostitute blow it in my ear, but that is all I did. High-fivin.’ ’
Flash forward to the kerfuffle — and Obama’s icy reaction — over this week’s New Yorker cover parodying fears about the Obamas.
“We’ve already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor, too?” wrote James Rainey in The Los Angeles Times, suggesting “an irony deficiency” in Obama and his fans.
Many of the late-night comics and their writers — nearly all white — now admit to The New York Times’s Bill Carter that because of race and because there is nothing “buffoonish” about Obama — and because many in their audiences are intoxicated by him and resistant to seeing him skewered — he has not been flayed by the sort of ridicule that diminished Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
“There’s a weird reverse racism going on,” Jimmy Kimmel said.
Carter also observed that there’s no easy comedic “take” on Obama, “like allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, or President Bush’s goofy bumbling or Al Gore’s robotic personality.”
At first blush, it would seem to be a positive for Obama that he is hard to mock. But on second thought, is it another sign that he’s trying so hard to be perfect that it’s stultifying? Or that eight years of W. and Cheney have robbed Democratic voters of their sense of humor?
Certainly, as the potential first black president, and as a contender with tender experience, Obama must feel under strain to be serious.
But he does not want the “take” on him to become that he’s so tightly wrapped, overcalculated and circumspect that he can’t even allow anyone to make jokes about him, and that his supporters are so evangelical and eager for a champion to rescue America that their response to any razzing is a sanctimonious: Don’t mess with our messiah!
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.
On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz satirized on that subject. He said that Obama, sympathetic to comics’ attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this:
“A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’ ”
John McCain’s Don Rickles routines — “Thanks for the question, you little jerk” — can fall flat. But he seems like a guy who can be teased harmlessly. If Obama offers only eat-your-arugula chiding and chilly earnestness, he becomes an otherworldly type, not the regular guy he needs to be.
He’s already in danger of seeming too prissy about food — a perception heightened when The Wall Street Journal reported that the planners for Obama’s convention have hired the first-ever Director of Greening, the environmental activist Andrea Robinson. She in turn hired an Official Carbon Adviser to “measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.”
The “lean ‘n’ green” catering guidelines, The Journal said, bar fried food and instruct that, “on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include ‘at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.’ (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of the ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel during transportation.”
Bring it on, Ozone Democrats! Because if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us.
First – If Obama’s camp doesn’t get the stick out of their butts with all this PC crap, he’s going to out-stiff Kerry.
Second – What is it saying about our society when we think every picture of a naked child is pornography or “disgusting”? Ever had a kid? You clothe them and bath them and they are naked A LOT! And every one of your mother’s has naked pictures of you. Are they all pornography or are we just getting a bit up tight over nothing? Frankly, I find all those dolled up pre-teens in PEOPLE or US more pornagraphic.
Traps,
I already provided the link to the Maureen Dowd article.
Pity that you failed to explain why the cartoon was “crap” (in your opinion). It deserved more than you gave it.
Might Michelle Obama be a fan of Angela Davis? A relevant question that you failed to raise.
Impossible to make a joke about Obama…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15humor.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Sack Race
—————
Condolesa Rice and Colin Powel are considered black icons when both are war mongers and have enriched themselves on the death of millions of people?
Along comes Obama – We still waxing lyrical about the colour thing.
That American democrats are keen on having a “black” president is a phenomenon worthy of studying. Why, this is happening we currently do not know. (?)
We would best understand Obama if viewed as a millionaire and careerist politician. And not as a “black man”
Obama foreign policy is no different to his “white” counterparts in the Republican Party. New driver same car?
Many Native Americans, Afro Americans, Latinos and other “minorities including the white working class might not see any socio-economic changes under Obama’s rule and conditions might worsen in the current recession
I guess, Obama’s candidacy will encourage a big election turn out if not the biggest historically. Some social commentators might claim it to be a shift in voter apathy, while others a galvanisation of Caucasian votes against a “black” man.
What shall it be?
A good thing about all this is that America since Clinton came to power is learning to tap its human resource irrespective of race and if pursued stand to benefit as a country and nation.
The New Yorker is correct on Obama. Obama is nothing but a hustler. First he was a “racial healer,” a hip Hypester, hypnotizing millions of worshippers, like one of born again TV evangelists. Now he is just another shifty, dodgy hustler, playing the race card like Jesse Jackson, even according to The New Yorker.
He makes outright deals with corruptocrat Tony Rezko to get his home cheap, and with the Teamsters to buy their election troops in exchange for Federal oversight leniency. He’s been lolling in bed with the wild-eyed zealots of ACORN for ten years or more.
The liberal media are down on him today, but of course they’re counting on the Braindead Vote to forget all about that in November when they lift him up again, just in time for the election. They’re stuck with him, and he knows it.
Obama has been lying his head off. On Iraq, he’s was agaisnt it, but he is for it now. On Iran, he was for it before, and against it now. On FISA terrorist surveillance, he just voted for what the hysterical Left has convinced itself to be a Nazi attack on civil rights. So he flip flopped and is now a rightie?
On Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he has danced about that one half a dozen times, scared to offend Jews, but always ending up on a different side. But liberal Jews will still vote for him, because they hate George Bush more than they love reality.
When is Obama not lying? When he is caught unaware. He wasn’t lying in his San Francisco sneers for the white voters of Pennsylvania. He is a closet racist, and has always been. Hence those newspaper satires. He wasn’t lying when he said everybody should learn Spanish, as he wants to submerge white america. He wasn’t lying when he was going on about a jazz-based Black identity curriculum to fix all the education problems of the inner city. He wasn’t lying when he said that Iran is just a “tiny country” (it isn’t) that poses no threat to the US.
Obama has no depth of knowledge about anything that matters. He just keeps swinging and hustling. Nothing but a slick empty suit.
Obama and his Christian Black “Liberation” Theology, the new psychic slavery for inner city Blacks, his background of muslim fundementalism, his dealing with the corrupt, like Tony Rezko, show he is nothing but a slick street hustler that will take any side that will get him a score.
To see the real Obama you have to see when he blurts out his real opinions in private, not the prepared speeches. Fortunately he is so undisciplined and overconfident that he does it often enough, and reverses himself from the prepared speeches.
His wife Michelle just cannot think outside of the racial resentment box.
What an embarassment for the USA. This looks like Bill and Hilary Clinton Ver 2, complete with all the historical pecaddillos.
@CE
Where those alleged photos? How come I never saw them or you are just making the story.
I admit to just skimming this. However it looks to me like the editor of the New Yorker over reacted to this cartoon, just like our own Mondli over reacted to the response to David Bullard.
The end of free speech is when the editors turn into cowards.
Consulting engineer does not add to the average IQ of this forum and should thus be barred from posting again.
Obama never said he was offended by the cartoon. Nor did he EVER play the race card. In fact, he said it didn’t bother him, but he feels for the muslim community which may be offended by such.
Your posts have always been tainted with orange white and blue shades mr ‘consulting engineer’. That’s why hardly anyone takes you seriously.
1. What do people not understand about FREEDOM OF SPEECH? By definition that means what I say will offend or embarrass you (or whatever) and TOUGH LUCK TO YOU!
2. Insulting Engineer IS embarrassing, sure, but I defend his right to freedom of speech, too (pity, but that’s freedom of speech for you!).
3. Since when is satire meant to make you feel good? Or even OK? Or even anything? If it irritates or saddens or annoys or PISSES you off, it’s WORKING! Remember, whenever satire gains a wider audience there are yelps and howls. It’s the way it should be.
4. Politicians are the most humourless forms of life on the planet. Please don’t take their feelings into account.
By the way, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expose that poor downtrodden and oppressed white person Consulting Engineer on his weird inventions! Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of invented “thruthiness”.
He has inventions? Is the pass law one of them?