The main argument made against The New Yorker cover is that it will foster the ignorant belief that Obama is a Muslim with shadowy connections. Chris Matthews says 12 percent of Americans believe Obama’s a Muslim. But will it actually have that effect? I doubt it. Shocking satire resonates in unpredictable ways. It provokes people to think about stuff. The outrage over the cover may well redound to Obama’s benefit, it could actually help to blow the rumor campaign out of the water. Obama himself began his AIPAC speech last month by joking about the Other Obama these Jews had heard so much about, wanting to reassure the audience that that wasn’t him. I wonder if Obama won’t be citing this New Yorker cartoon before long in his speeches, and if it won’t serve him as a foil. From an early age in the news business, I’ve been warned of the consequences of printing this or that. Rarely were the warnings correct. Other stuff happened instead. And as for the idea that The New Yorker should mold its jokes to serve ignorant people, talk down to its own audience… why do we have a free press?
-
-
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 4
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 21
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 17
- And we live on… 2
- US official — we went to Israel first 9
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 28
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 478
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 433
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 397
- March of the Flags 347
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 326
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza 224
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 131
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 117
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (21)
- Annie Robbins: abdul, yeah read about bbc deceit w/iraq 03 photo here: http://www.moonofalabama.or...
- Samuel T: It is common place among [diplomatic entities] to hold to two separate accounts of what took place. The...
- Abdul-Rahman: I meant to say how could the Syrian army that everyone (government and opposition) agrees was shelling...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (28)
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that employ migrant workers (4)
- Hostage: I can’t imagine Ukraine getting away with fining any company that employs Jews. Introductory note by the...
- Slater on Beinart (17)
- seafoid: Consequently, there is no good reason to revere or love Israel There is nothing noble about watching a...
- seafoid: “Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t” Jonathan...
- Shmuel: Jerome Slater has an excellent piece up on his site about Peter Beinart’s book and its critics. I...
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (132)
- Hostage: To my mind the UN has put it in as close as one can get in lay man’s language in Chapt XI, with no mention...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (21)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Jack Ross
- Jeffrey Blankfort
- Ilene Cohen
- Anees of Jerusalem
- Felson
- Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
Blogroll
Phil,
This seems to me like the lying emails that went out in the first place. Maliciously intended to smear. Rather than address his [winning] arguments, better you should smear him so everyone isolates him. At least keep him on the defensive. Sure it's satire, but of what or who? The smearers! Who gets that? Who's laughing as Obama again is publicly smeared and asked his reaction? The smearers are loving it. Who's made to feel uncomfortable by having their features and qualities caricatured? The victim of the smearers. My daughter thinks the New Yorker readers are all smart enough to "get it." My view is not everyone understands the malice behind the smear campaign, and this doesn't expose anything. I think the media isn't giving Obama a level playing field, and this is another pretty egregious example. Would they ridicule a Jew in this way for slanderous things (or even truthful criticism) said against them? No way. It's entitled the politics of fear. Is it Rove's and Cheney's fear-mongering that is referred to? or the fear felt by Zionists that you write about? Or does it have one meaning for Zionists and another for the rest? It's pretty subtle, I'll give you that. But I think it crosses the line. What does the Black community think about it? Doesn't the title recall the fear used to oppress the Black race for centuries. That's not very funny or appropriate. What does the American Muslim community think about it? What about their fear that they will be locked up and tortured because some anonymous someone doesn't like them and drops a dime. It's the smearers who should be satirized, and this doesn't touch them.
Doppler
______________________________________________________________________________________
Great post, Doppler.
Tonight I took my laptop to the bar and threw the cover up to see what the people at the bar thought. None had seen it. None knew anything about the issue.
Everyone, EVERY ONE, 'got' it in a way that the New Yorker did not intend. Latino, Black, Blue Collar, Construction Worker . . . every single one including the bartender did not pick up that this was a satire about smears against Obama.
Everyone, EVERY ONE, said it was a shocking racist cartoon. I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say their jaws dropped. Almost in cartoon. They stared at me. And dropped their jaws. "You're kidding me, right?" "Unbelievable." "This is disgusting." "They can get away with this in New York?"
We're not talking PhDs here. We're talking regular folk who have to be at work at 7 AM to punch in.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
PHIL . . . DID YOU CATCH THIS?
"Republican Jewish Official Spends Day Lying To Reporters About Obama" by Sam Stein
link to huffingtonpost.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
New Yorker Covers linked here as well as the Bush as Nero cover look more like charicatures to express a truth about the President and VP.
By the same logic, the Obama cover would be a charicature meant to express a truth about Barack and Michelle.
The Jew Yorker is trying to pass this off as satire, but we all know it is pure, deliberate, and calculated innuendo. And yet…there is such an element of truth to it. Michelle as the armed and angry, Sandinista-type rebel who wears the combat boots and the (military fatigue) pants in the family; Obama as the somewhat effete, red lipped metro sexual made up in turban and frock, wearing sandals. The black-pride fist knock. All taking place in the Oval Office with a portrait of Bin Laden hanging in the background. Average America’s worst fears encapsulated in a single magazine cover.
Wow. The Jew Yorker better hope Obama doesn’t win the presidency, because they’ve bet the farm on this one.
Oh yeah, I forgot the American flag burning in the White House fireplace. Absolutely ruthless.
That in and of itself should bring on the complete dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, if a President Obama has any retaliatory balls–something the Jew Yorker seems to seriously doubt.
Just how much kosher abuse are these limp-wristed liberals willing to take? I guess we're going to find out.
Why the tears for Obama who by his right turn toward the center has revealed himself to be a classic opportunist?
An opportunist is a practitioner of opportunism. Which is?
Websters…
opportunism
One entry found.
opportunism
Main Entry: op·por·tun·ism
Pronunciation: \-ˈtü-ˌni-zəm, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Date: 1870
: the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences.
But Obama need not worry. Despite the fact that he has thrown all the Rev Wright and Antiwar folks under the bus, he still has strong support from the "left wing" of the Lobby,by way of his connection to Rham Emmanuel. On the other hand they just might stand back and watch him take the fall…
knowing McCain has the support of the Rothschilds…
What I liked about the cover, was the suggestion that clothes are just clothes.
Its proposals, law, manner of implementation that counts.
Phil, suggesting people are ignorant because they don't find a "joke" funny is a desperate attempt to make a point for your very weak argument. Give it up Phil. What The New Yorker did was a stupid, stupid thing to do.
As far as a free press…well only within certain boundaries.
MRW: And dropped their jaws. "You're kidding me, right?" "Unbelievable." "This is disgusting." "They can get away with this in New York?"
In a way that proves Phil's point, MRW.
The cartoon is a very simple visualization of the rumor contents. The reaction shows in this simple shape it isn't taken.
Has anyone read the article. Concerning the "Phd's" or the the New Yorker's readers generally. What image arises from the combination?
And I would like to know how many not regular readers the cover attracts, compared to other cover related stories.
Mr. Weiss,you should know by now the Goyim & the Schwartze are so stupid they can't fully appreciate our sophisticated & legendary humor.
Now,take a look at this,that's funny.
http://www.heretical.com/houswitz/index.html
"What I liked about the cover, was the suggestion that clothes are just clothes. Its proposals, law, manner of implementation that counts."
As in A Modest Proposal and The Producers?
From Merriam-Webster:
satire
1. A literary work holding up human vices and follies to scorn and ridicule
2. Trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Neither of these definitions ring true. It's not the people who believe these things that are being held up to scorn and ridicule, it's the Obamas themselves. Certainly nothing here is discrediting vice or folly.
What the cover does smack of is the Northeastern liberal elitism that drives left-of-center moderates in "flyover country" away from the Democrats.
What would happen if the cover of the New Yorker instead had all the ideas you spout about the neocons being in essence a cabal that uses every obfuscation possible to hide the calling of protecting Israel? Can't you see it? Wolfie, Feith, and Perle controlling Bush, Cheney, and Rummy as they break the glasses in the shapes of Iran, Iraq, and Palestine in order to protect Israel? How would that play outside the readers of your blog?
"If you get the joke, it's a savvy kidney-punch to the idiotic, fact-depraved culture that entities like Fox News thrive in. If you don't – it's a funny picture showing Barack and Michelle Obama's true stripes."–from a commentator on the internet.
Each audience brings to the cartoon its own assumptions as all play loose with the facts?
How about that cartoon that played frontpage in Israel some time ago, the one showing Obama in front of the White House–being painted black?
If The Family Guy skewers Fox News opinion constantly, why do the Fox News pundits love it?
How does Sarah Silverman fit in here?
Is there anything that isn't considered "camp" from some POV?
Doesn't irony depend on awareness of multiple POCs? At least two?
Opps, I mean POVs not POCs.
Defenestrator. Check here:
http://tinyurl.com/5gcf4u
Andrew Collins gets it right:
Cartoon time: link to wherediditallgoright.com
If I were part of the Obama camp, I surely would use this. Publicity is publicity. And it means you have people's attention.
Moral outrage is boring, in such a case. Use it to your advantage. Laugh the conservative's main weapons out of usable public coinage.
"How about that cartoon that played frontpage in Israel some time ago, the one showing Obama in front of the White House–being painted black?"
That's a different story, Charles.
the new yorker should have a cover with the DC mall area covered one end to the other with hanging nooses, guillotines, truck batteries, dentist's chairs and dentist's tools with elected pols, appointees, media liars, and lobbyists in line to receive justice. it would be a long line stretching to the back page and to several future issues.
an outta new york read:
July 14, 2008
Constitutional Incongruities
Enabling Tyranny
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
I recently read that Brigette Bardot, now in her 70s, has been arrested as a hate criminal for complaining that Muslims in France slaughter sheep without first stunning them. The famous actress is known for her sympathy with animals, but the French government preferred to interpret her remarks as hatred for Muslims. Prosecutor Anne de Fontetts promised to throw the book at Bardot.
There are many incongruities here. The French are persecuting one of their own for taking exception to the practices of an alien culture. But then, perhaps this is just being broad-minded. What really jumps out is: if Bardot’s animal rights position makes her a hate criminal, what does French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s foreign policy position make him?
According to Information Clearing House’s running tally as of July 12, 1,236,604 Iraqis have been slaughtered as a result of the Sarkozy-supported US invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Bardot is a hate criminal under French law for complaining about how Muslims prepare their mutton, why isn’t President Sarkozy a hate criminal for supporting an American policy that has resulted in the deaths of 1,236,604 Muslims and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?
Such incongruities are everywhere. It is as if people are no longer capable of thought.
Last week the US Congress passed an ex post facto law that legalized the illegal behavior of telecommunication companies that enabled the Bush Regime to violate US law and to spy on Americans without warrants. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. But, alas, the US Constitution does not make campaign contributions, and telecommunication companies do.
The Bush Regime claimed that its illegal behavior, which requires an unconstitutional retroactive law to protect telecommunication companies and President Bush from being held accountable, is necessary to protect us. But as our Founding Fathers and every intelligent patriotic person since has patiently explained to the American public, it is the Constitution that protects us. No safety can be found by fleeing the Constitution.
Without the Constitution we have no protection. We simply stand naked before unbridled government power.
That’s pretty much how we stand now after 7.5 years of the Bush Regime. Electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 did not make any difference. Indeed, it was a Democratic majority Congress that last week gave Bush his unconstitutional ex post facto law.
As Larry Stratton and I point out in the new edition of Tyranny, the US Constitution has no friends. The Democrats don’t like the Second Amendment (another incongruity in the face of the right-wing police state that Bush has created), and the Brownshirt Republicans regard the rest of our civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists.
Across the political spectrum, Americans are happy to shred the Constitution in behalf of some agenda or the other.
The government is happy to oblige, because shredding the Constitution removes constraints on the government’s power.
It has fallen to the private, member-supported organization known as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to challenge the retroactive law that destroys the privacy rights granted to US citizens by the Constitution. The ACLU is regarded by conservatives as a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity, and the right-wing idiots on Fox “News” and talk radio will denounce the ACLU for wanting to empower terrorists.
Conservatives will repeat endlessly that Americans who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear. If this argument held any water, there would have been no point in the Founding Fathers writing the Constitution.
The position of the US Government is that the rights granted Americans by the Constitution facilitate terrorism. To be safe from terrorists, the argument goes, we must allow the government to take liberties with the Constitution. This argument gives government the power to set aside the Constitution, and, thus, enables tyranny. As Milton Friedman and many others taught us, rules are the essence of freedom, and discretionary power is the essence of tyranny.
Bush’s “war on terror,” essentially a hoax, has transformed the United States into a lawless nation. We are not lawless in the sense of an absence of laws. We are lawless in the sense that despite a surfeit of laws, we no longer have the rule of law.
If the President doesn’t like an existing law, he ignores it. If the President doesn’t like new laws passed by Congress, instead of vetoing them he prepares a “signing statement,” which says that he will determine what the law means.
This lawlessness has spread from the top of the federal government down to local governments and community associations. Recently the state of Georgia passed a law that reaffirmed that anyone with a carry permit was entitled to have their concealed weapon when dropping off or picking up passengers at the Atlanta airport. The Atlanta city government said it would not obey the state law and would arrest anyone, including the state legislator who sponsored the legislation, who carried a permitted weapon onto airport property.
A community in which I live has by-laws that forbid members of the board of the property owners association from serving as general manager of the designated community. This did not prevent the board from appointing one of their own the general manager. The POA board regards the by-laws which govern it as merely words without force.
Just like Bush regards the US Constitution
It's good to know them evil zionists are working in more deadly means of cult of personality destruction because for a minute there, I thought we were talking about a friggin caricature!
Now let me dress my skinny jew costume. I'm going to the final destination while you pretend forty years of incessant demonizing of muslims have come to it's apex in the cover of some ny magazine.
RE: "How about that cartoon that played frontpage in Israel some time ago, the one showing Obama in front of the White House–being painted black?"
That's a different story, Charles.
Posted by: LeaNder | July 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM
How so, LeaNder?
slomo, a link with the relevant citation would be enough.
I seem to have a vague memory that BB has exhibited heightened sympathies for the French New Right. If you go back in European history you will find the same arguments against the Jewish slaughter methods.
Charles from the top of my head, there wasn't an extensive discussion about a black not being allowed to be president, but there surely was a huge campaign to paint him as a muslim and via this as a terrorist.
The New Yorker cartoon manages to capture the whole rumor mill in one picture. AND I happen to think that images are more powerful. The outrage is related to the–in the picture–obvious exaggeration. The moral outrage shows that this is easy to see. It obviously wasn't that easy for people to judge the rumor. And that makes all the difference.
Witty: “What I liked about the cover, was the suggestion that clothes are just clothes. Its proposals, law, manner of implementation that counts.”
Hah! This is the “satire” spin that the New Yorker editors would have us believe, and that they were calculating gullible left-liberals would fall for. Meanwhile, they continue on with their premeditated hatchet jobs, insisting the whole time: “No, this isn’t a smear, it’s art! You don’t get it? You must be a uncultured philistine.”
And what about the burning American flag and the portrait of bin Laden? What kind of policy “implementation” do those portend?
For a long time, “liberal” Jewish Zionists as epitomized by the New Yorker staff have been playing the “sophisticated," supposedly educated left-liberal hordes for the fools they are; this is just the latest example. Only this time the hordes finally applied some long-repressed horse sense that their betters thought had been socially engineered into oblivion, and saw right through it. Are the hordes finally wising up?
.
What made you so angry about Richard's statement, Chris? Are you sure you understood, what he means? I don't. Aren't the clothes very essential for the joke?
Concerning this: "And what about the burning American flag and the portrait of bin Laden? What kind of policy “implementation” do those portend?"
Do you consider this realistic? Do you think anybody takes that serious? Can you figure Obama & Michelle burning the flag and honoring bin Laden? If not, what could the cartoonist possibly mean?
LeaNder: "The New Yorker cartoon manages to capture the whole rumor mill in one picture. AND I happen to think that images are more powerful. The outrage is related to the–in the picture–obvious exaggeration. The moral outrage shows that this is easy to see. It obviously wasn't that easy for people to judge the rumor. And that makes all the difference." – If this picture were on the cover of TNY, the above words would also fit.
link to calvin.edu
The caption: "The Jew: The inciter of war, the prolonger of war." It could be claimed that this picture is satirical. Does this help you understand why what TNY did is a problem?
Imagine a New Yorker cover depicting Joe Lieberman and John McCain in the Oval Office, both wearing yarmulkes, high-fiving, with a picture of the Twin Towers burning in the background, overlaid with the Mossad motto “By way of deception, thou shalt do war,” and another picture of carnage in bombed out Baghdad and Tehran.
Imagine the New Yorker editors defending it as a satire of rumors that had been circulating the internet and talk radio for months, and saying those who didn’t “get it” were unsophisticated rubes.
It would never happen.
Yet this “Obama bin Laden” depiction is defended by our Zionist cultural masters as “holding up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful and the absurd.” Right. It’s the hypocritical, murderous, corrupt establishment that is hateful and absurd.
Obama is just now getting a taste of what happens to those who make Faustian bargains with the malignant contemporary establishment and its Zionist stalking horses.
Either you get that, or you don't — and those who don't are the true rubes.
Laurie, tell me why you think the two images are comparable.
One maligns to Jews, the other maligns Muslims. Check the cover out again, the picture over the mantel brings to mind Osama Bin Laden. The image ties the Muslim terrorist Bin Laden with Obama's outfit and brings to mind Obama's father's religion. The gun slung over Mrs. Obama's shoulder also adds to the terrorist meme. Subtle but present.
link to google.com
LeaNder, willful ignorance is still ignorance.
Now please tell me why you think the two images are not comparable, if in fact you do.
Laurie, you are astute; I don't get it that A German from Germany with the intellect and honest curiosity LeaNder constantly demonstrates does not. Does he need Goebbels to explain it to him? Or maybe any American in Marketing 101?
OK, good point Chris. But I think one shows the allegations are absurd by visualizing them, while your image leaves them intact:
You use selective elements from the post 911 world that have no direct or single relation to your two characters. As you heavily rely on a Mossad association. It appears twice in your imagery:
1) via the high-fiving four(?), whose gestures the two copy.
2) by Victor Ostrovsky's coinage, by way of deception.
3) enhanced by both wearing yarmulkes (which of course is a parallel to TNY, but there it has meaning connected to the anti-Obama rumor, in your case it is a general post 911 rumor not specifically associated with them.
The outcome is not absurd but a close association of both Lieberman and McCain with Mossad. Mossad pulling Lieberman's & McCain's strings? Mossad being involved in 911?
These rumors gained their main momentum by the utter secrecy of the government …
*****************************************
Let me offer you the essence of the shared view/or hawkish mindset from a review Ruth Wisse's book. The same self-confident perception of post 911 matters that many of us watched not only in McCain and Lieberman but in many, many, many, some German neocons too:
http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=174
"Wisse concludes on the comforting note that Israel, the Jew among nations, has been forced to innovate and develop a military and scientific edge valuable to its allies – just as the particular skills of stateless Jews once made them indispensable to their host societies.
Besides, Israel is in the front line in the fight against terror. But here Wisse's American optimism is out of synch with the prevailing European view. European elites are far from ready to acknowledge Israel's role on the front line in the war on Islamist terror, and rather too many consider Israel as the main cause of it. "
"One maligns to Jews, the other maligns Muslims."
This would be true if Barack and Michelle were Muslims. But everybody knows they are not! That's the whole point of the picture. The rumor tries to make them threating via something they clearly are not. The Nazi propaganda does not use real people but an icon that supposedly stands for "the Jew", lurking behind a curtain. He does not need personal features he is an icon that symbolizes threat, mischief and secrecy.
Take a little time and watch the pictures again. Do Michelle and Obama look threatening to you and than compare the Nazi propaganda.
"Does he need Goebbels to explain it to him? Or maybe any American in Marketing 101?"
Charles, I happen to be trained to read pictures from my subjects of study. Let me tell you, you are wrong on this.
I slightly agree agree with Chris on this. I firmly dislike double standards, but he has to improve his imagery that it escapes the pure ideological level.
There is a wonderful book on the literary and visual history of the Lucretia myth. I mention this since at one point an artist in the 18thcentury decided that Tarquinius the rapist surely must have been naked when raping poor Lucretia. Unfortunately the outcome was hilarious, the naked guy did not look threating anymore but ridiculous.
Some people in my topics have been discussing for quite some time now: the pictorial turn, and I agree that is happening. The problem is that it isn't trained enough. People simply read into pictures what is on their minds.
Again: The picture does not ridicule Obama and his wife, far from it, it ridicules the mindset that tries to stick the Muslim fearing Zeitgeist on them, and visually it shows really easily that it simply does not fit.
Re: "The problem is that it isn't trained enough. People simply read into pictures what is on their minds.
Again: The picture does not ridicule Obama and his wife, far from it, it ridicules the mindset that tries to stick the Muslim fearing Zeitgeist on them, and visually it shows really easily that it simply does not fit.
Posted by: LeaNder | July 15, 2008 at 05:38 PM"
Yes, LeaNder, I believe this is so for you. You've missed the whole point about what it means to millions unlike you.
You’re over-thinking it, LeaNder.
What is the practical effect of TNY image? It plays upon, reinforces and visually validates a whispering campaign (that Barack is a secret Muslim, that Michelle is an angry black Marxist militant), and provides imagery that impresses a visual upon people’s minds what otherwise was merely an audio (verbally spread rumor and innuendo).
I don’t believe for a minute that those who put together this project were motivated by satire any more than those who orchestrated the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy were motivated by a desire to advance debate and confront self-censorship. Zionists are never interested in free speech issues when it is Jewish Zionism in the spotlight; in fact, in that circumstance all they are interested in is suppressing and subverting debate. But suddenly, when it is time to smear Christians, Muslims, the new left, or any of their other rivals, they demand the right to use the biggest of loudspeakers — and have access to them because of their prevalence in the media.
This was propaganda, through and through. And those familiar with Jewish Zionist propaganda techniques will recognize their fingerprints all over this right away.
These are the most technically advanced people in the art of passive-aggressive agitation in modern history, and many of them are extremely cunning sociopaths who are almost impossible to nail — that is, until one realizes they are sociopaths. Then the picture starts to become clear.
And yeah, a lot of sociopaths probably have legitimate background grievances and histories of abuse that explain why they are the way they are, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to take them off of the streets.
Dangerous Jewish Zionist fanatics should be taken off the streets by deporting them to Israel, and arming the Palestinians so they can defend themselves.
Don't believe for a minute that the New Yorker staff did not know what that cartoon would show to most who viewed it.
It's a case of the New Yorker staff not knowing what they were dealing with–they were all raised in gated communities in the USA, and know nothing of real America or real World–they don't have to, their parent's are that wealthy.
Jeez, we have a german from germany defending jewish propaganda because of past history, but he doesnt' see he is his own worst enemy because of past allegories. Kraut, wake up!
Chris, now you talk about intention, that is a slippery road. And you generalize. Do you have special experience with the people at The New Yorker? Seymour Hersh, Jane Mayer …
Concerning the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, not only were they crude and considering were it came from, I tend to agree with you. But I don't think this is comparable.
No, I am not American, and obviously I can only partially judge the scene. But I like the combination of Muslim and Black Power imagery. Black Power surfaced in the Jeremiah Wright debate. Old and new terrorism. …
I could give you a lot of examples were neocon anti-Muslim circles and Judeo-Christian white racist merge. I have been watching this for quite some time now, others too. And yes, it feels this is the mindset that created the rumors.
Admittedly, I deeply distrust the collective moral high ground. It probably comes from the same people that don't mind to ridicule Obama with all kind of silly stuff, but now suddenly they are given a chance to be OUTRAGED. Hmmm?
Latent racism is fine, but don't dare to show it?
…"while you pretend forty years of incessant demonizing of muslims have come to it's apex in the cover of some ny magazine."
Anonymous at l0:39AM, you're right, those nayzi goyishe kop don't get it.
Try this:
"A few years of incessant demonizing of jews have come to it's apex in the cover of some berlin magazine."
Well, it led Streicher right to the gallows.
Anonymous l0:39AM,do you belong to the Tribe of PODS(People Of Double Standards)?
Bantam, we monkeys don't have standards. Don't waste your time on me. I think the cartoon was funny and the Obama-Michelle pair a real catastrophe. Condi and Powell were enough for me to dismiss american high echelon blacks as panderers and puppets (ok, Michelle is a puppet with rabies.)
Bantam, I understand my sense of humor is sometimes hard to fathom and of little interest, but in my comment I made use of a catch-phrase from a movie (meant to be terribly funny), plus a reference to your post (meant to be amiable) and stated that the real problem in America (and it's international cultural colonies) is the long effort by american jews in demonizing muslims. You know, there must be hundreds of muslims (and blacks) in America with greater intellect and moral stature than Obama and yet he is considered to be "smeared" when donning their clothes. That is the real tragedy.
LeaNder, the Obama campaign was not pleased with the picture so apparently they didn't get the message you have proposed. Remember the cover has not appeared in a vacuum. Images of Bin Laden, angry Muslims burning American flags, Muslim terrorists with guns etc.etc. are seared into the American psyche via the mainstream press and Hollywood. Add that to the talk about Obama's father being black, Muslim and the angry Rev. Wright and TNY cover becomes less charming then your sterile academic analysis suggests.
Also LeaNder your introducing white racism into the conversation is a way to shut down debate by shaming. You are trying to put yourself on the high moral ground by suggesting those of us who disagree with you are racist which means of course you are not. The fact that you resorted to using it tells me you are not confident in your position and well you shouldn't be. Whether or not you realize it you are using tactics discussed in "The Authoritarian Personality" and "Eros and Civilization." If indeed you are German you have been brow beaten with these tactics since the 1950's and it shows.