to put it another way, i see it as a gift to aipac. the new yorker plays it safe w/israel to a degree. even the recent piece on adleson didn’t really stick it to him like they could have (as i recall, i would have to review the piece but i did notice they dropped the ball a few times).

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002
Remnick cited for bringing Jewish voice to New Yorker
The Forward
The Forward puts New Yorker editor David Remnick on its “Forward 50” list, saying “the magazine has taken on a distinctly Jewish voice for the first time” under his editorship. Forward editors write: “In the [New Yorker’s] fiction department, Jonathan Safran Foer is only the best known of a crop of young Jewish authors recently discovered by the magazine. The past year also saw Adam Gopnik’s piece on Purim and Jewish humor, which described the diverging paths of Judaism and Jewish ethnicity.” ALSO ON THE “FORWARD 50” LIST: Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens and Seth Lipsky.

source
i linked to that because while i don’t think of the newyorker as a distinctly ‘jewish publication’ i think the magazine, along w/the population of new york is much more exposed to the influence of the jewish voice and lobby. and this may make the ‘satire’ clearer w/this audience.
i don’t think the rest of the country is ready for that kind of humor tho.

Posted by: annie | Jul 14 2008 23:16 utc | 3

The New Yorker has always had satirical covers by this cartoonist. Here’s a slide show of several of them. Pay attention to the truly embarrassing ones of George Bush, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. No one has singled out Obama specifically.
Slide show

Posted by: Ensley | Jul 15 2008 1:51 utc | 5

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1]
on the cover, what vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings of obama or michelle’s were targeted. because if the editor of the new yorker was being honest, the subjects of the satire were not depicted, at all.

Posted by: annie | Jul 15 2008 2:46 utc | 7

annie, the title of the cartoon cover was “The Politics of Fear,” and was satirizing the ridiculous fear-mongering smears that have
been aired about the Obamas by the neocons and other subintelligent Americans.
Not everybody catches on to satire, apparently.

Posted by: Ensley | Jul 15 2008 2:54 utc | 9

B, have to agree, the New Yorker has not been interesting for quite some time. The Beltway/NYC crowd just doesn’t understand the rest of the world, including the US.

Posted by: Allen/Vancouver | Jul 15 2008 3:41 utc | 11

OT as well, since I’m pretty tired at this point of defending the cover.
Can some enlightened soul explain to me how the so called sub-prime crisis isn’t just the end of what is in fact a ponzi scheme. The part I’m suspecting is that when the CDO’s are reconfigured to AAA and junk, wouldn’t there have to be an ever increasing stream of “good” portions of mortgages to come in to offset the junk which may as well be discarded. And since the source is the same collection of dubious debts, wouldn’t the volume need to increase exponentially to even keep the marketing going? Never mind what happens(ed) when the payments started coming due.

Posted by: YY | Jul 15 2008 4:37 utc | 13

annie,
The OT question was serious and not to divert the issue. I am just tired of looking through the pages and pages of comments about this in the blogs, but here is my 2 cents. The American public may act irrationally, emotionally, with prejudice and carelessly. However they are not as stupid, as made out by those who are critical of the cover to believe literally in significant numbers that Obama is a muslim. He may be tagged a muslim but that is not the same thing. The New Yorker cover is not the Dakakis tank moment, the Dean scream, or Swifting of Kerry. To the extent it sticks, there are no lost votes, they are gone already. And if you believe that the Dukakis tank, Dean scream, and Swifting of Kerry are substantial turning points and not short hand for a slew of political activity and non-activity then Obama should be labeled French as well. What I find annoying is that the more serious the observer, the less aware they are that the cartoon does the opposite of perpetuating the muslim meme. It does not take away however the fact that it is basically racist coding and this will not be erased unless it gets a bit more circulation and ridicule.

Posted by: YY | Jul 15 2008 5:17 utc | 15

The OT question was serious and not to divert the issue. I am just tired of looking through the pages and pages of comments
there is a feature on the right side of the homepage. it doesn’t discriminate. any reader can choose their topic (or poster). if one wants to discuss something OT, the OT threads are easily accessible on the top left hand side of the homepage. therefore to post a totally OT topic on any thread could be perceived as TROLL material. if you have any seriousness wrt discussing economics this thread would most likely not be fruitful.
if you post in the fannie/freddie/ or OT threads it will rise to the top of the column, and everyone will be able to consider it just as they would by you posting here without the obvious curiosity of why you are not choosing to use the OT/ or FF format provided.
The New Yorker cover is not the Dakakis tank moment, the Dean scream, or Swifting of Kerry.
i know that. you seem to imagine my view is based on defending obama. it isn’t. it is based on an anti propaganda view against perpetuating the islamofascism meme via any means possible including combating the obvious negative publicity towards the muslim faith.
that paragraph is sorta sketchy. signing off for now.

Posted by: annie | Jul 15 2008 6:21 utc | 17

Being someone that thinks that all historical shackles would be freed the moment the first president of the US is a publicly avowed atheist, I don’t have particular sympathy for any religion, not even the Islamo types fascist or not. I do think that the muslim labeling is to allow the taboo of overt racial identification (which is that of non-whiteness) by substitution. That is why there is such a high percentage (whatever it is) that agree Obama is a muslim. I don’t think the origin of this really matters that much as there are enough racists (latent and overt) out there that pick up on this and use it practically.
Even suggestion of uncertainty as to Obama’s background such as Hillary’s “as far as I know” statement feed this kind of prejudice. Of course why this particular phrasing was used will require reading of minds, though the effect is the same regardless of motive.
Now the question is not the quality of humor, as there are differences in what people find amusing, but of whether or not making a derisive cartoon of the smears is harmful. Then who does it harm? I just don’t buy the argument that it will be misinterpreted, because those arguments rely so heavily on the correct interpretation (maybe not a happy interpretation) by these critics. In other words it is always someone else that is going to not get the message. This is what I find far more condescending and uninformed than what the New Yorker may or may not represent. New Yorker is a wierd magazine anyway, far too literate and intelligent to rely on the profile of the customers of the goods they advertise. Less liberal or rather political than one would assume. That said, Jane Meyer and Seymor Hersch do not strike me as people who would be supported by any organization that would have an identifiable political leaning anywhere right of center. (not that this center is anywhere near center outside of America)
Does the cartoon dis muslims? Yes it does but in a roundabout way. America has been dissing muslims for a number of years now so much of it goes unnoticed and it isn’t going to get fixed soon.

Posted by: YY | Jul 15 2008 9:20 utc | 19

Suspend Donations to ObamaGive to ACLU Instead

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 15 2008 11:52 utc | 21

If you want to give to somebody, give to your family (and potentially neighbors) a supply of food, bandages, whiskey, weapons, medicines, trade goods (vodka’s good – cheap means buy QUANTITY),toilet paper, water purifier, generator …. ideally with cash and quietness. There’s a presidential order against hoarding, so you don’t want to test at what level the functionaries will enforce.

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 15 2008 12:25 utc | 23

annie @24
“…so far this ‘legend’ has no legs on a google search outside of snopes.”
That would be true if the link went to “snopes.com” and not “snoopes.com”.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 15 2008 14:25 utc | 25

oh copeland i know ‘the new yorker’ is not the enemy.
mono, i couldn’t find the ‘legend’ anywhere else on the net other than ott’s link.
YY I don’t have particular sympathy for any religion, not even the Islamo types fascist or not.
you mean you also have no sympathy even for muslims, fascist or not. thanks for clearing that up.
That is why there is such a high percentage …that agree Obama is a muslim.
really? hmm, wouldn’t say i agree w/you on this but if it were true one might think the cover was throwing them red meat, no? it also doesn’t square w/this statements of yours:I just don’t buy the argument that it will be misinterpreted….it is always someone else that is going to not get the message. how/why do all these people who allegedly ‘agree’ obama is a muslim if previous propaganda hasn’t been effective. for those people the ‘satire’ is confirmation and would be misinterpreted.
I don’t think the origin of this really matters that much as there are enough racists (latent and overt) out there that pick up on this and use it practically.
in other words let’s not look at who started this ‘rumor’ or ‘legend’ (referring to my zionist lobby link/allegation above @ #2) because the racists (the intended audience for these kinds of smears, if i am understanding you correctly) will pick it up and run with it? i’m not following your logic.
here’s what the audience you refer to (the racists) and the new yorker have in common. they are both spreading the meme of the ‘origin’ you don’t think matters. look over there, nuthin happn’n here folks.
i find your curiosity here more refreshing.

In Japanese Bunraku puppet theater, the puppeteers are visible and out in the open, assistants wearing black hoods and the master puppeteer not concealing himself at all. The audience accepts this and does not feel deceived.
In TV sit-coms, particularly in American sit-coms, there is a recorded laugh track with no studio/stage audience. The TV audience has no problems accepting this deception, and in this case it is almost where the laugh track is considered to be a sound track of sorts a cue to help the audience be amused.
Why is the propaganda so brazen, transparent, unamusing, ineffective, but still reported as if they represent reality? Why do false, misleading, unproven,and suspiciously bogus from repeated familiarity stuff keep getting reported?

aside from the caveat as if they represent reality because this was an intended ‘spoof’ the ‘origin’ in your examples of both the puppet theater and the canned laughter is not in disguise and accepted. but we are directed to NOT look at the origin wrt the muslim smears. we are NOT to associate that origin w/the newyorker. why?
ensley, i noticed you didn’t answer my question on 6 and 12.
ok, i realize i am dominating this thread and for that i am sorry. maybe i am way off course here, i just find it very odd, considering all the hullabaloo and so much publicity regarding the islamofascist meme in the cover (muslim, bin laden, death to america image/ burnt flag, michelle dressed as terrorist) why no one is addressing the origin of the meme and why, in the nyr’s explanation “meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd.” the word ‘islamofascist’ is not spoken.
this I/F meme is an assault on the consciousness of the world used to perpetuate the WOT/long war. we all know that. so if the new yorker wants to bring things ‘out in the open’… why not talk about WHO started this and why? WHERE this muslim bashing/smear originated? HOW it is used to perpetuate the neocon genocial goals? this has been going on pre obama.
copeland Barak–which again to my very subjective eye–appear to be very sweet, childlike, even cherubic expressions.
maybe we are looking @ different cartoons. i see shifty conspiring eyes. nothing cherub whatsoever, in fact his face is elongated.
this is happening at the expense of muslims of course.
ok, for a minute can we all think of what a non issue this would be if the newyorker chose any run of the mill non jewish politician who had been getting slack for being to pro israel/sionist and charactarized that politician with gross nazi like image of a jew complete w/allusions to control of hollywood, the press, the banks the whole 9 yards?
ok? copeland, YY, j ott, ensley… can you add to that list for me of anti semite characteristic of zionists that might enhance the ‘satire’?
any takers? or just tell me jews wouldn’t be offended. tell me its ok to take a persons religion and cross reference it w/whatever the hell serves your purpose.

Posted by: annie | Jul 15 2008 15:33 utc | 27

*clapping, clapping, clapping* for Annie.

Posted by: Jake | Jul 15 2008 16:16 utc | 29

I looked through the slide-show @5 of past New Yorker cartoon covers and none of them qualifies as intended to satirize simpletons & the ignorant.
and I would like to think that if the satirical merit of this cartoon had been given adequate discussion & contemplation at the New-Yorker, someone might have observed — “Whats the point ? The folks being satired do’nt read us”. Not to suggest that this by itself should always merit scrapping a cartoon. Also, the New-Yorker has had many opportunities to pursue the same same satirical-cartoon-theme. Has it done so ?
Along the same satirical theme, The New Yorker might have done a cartoon of Saddam Hussein in a party-clown hat lighting a cigar as he watches the Word-Trade Center crumble. Or whatever. The point is they are very capable of coming up with a cartoon satirizing the segment of the population that still believes he’s responsible for 9/11. I have’nt seen it.
I’m just not convinced the New-Yorker is generally interested in pursuing this particular genre of satire. And it may seem like splitting hairs but since we’re talking about it, theres my two cents.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 15 2008 16:34 utc | 31

For those wishing to see a similar cover featuring McCain Horsey at the Seattle PI provides one.

Posted by: Sgt Dan | Jul 15 2008 16:59 utc | 33

I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong, annie, or offer any critcism on your fears, with regard to this cover art. You are saying that the ‘origin’ embedded in this drawing ought to be taboo, and that it was unwise/distasteful for the artist to take the risk he has taken. And that the end result is destructive.
In the anti-semitic cartoons that date from the 1930s, one sees the marked effort at demonization, disfiguring and dehumanizing the human subjects. The artist’s lines typically appear pinched, crude, or forced, to render his subjects; and one always can spot the violence and loathing present in the hand that made the drawing.
I confess that I personally can find no trace of this kind of animus, no malign feature in The New Yorker cartoon. When I look especially at the “Michelle” I see only the cute sort of face one sees in a children’s book. And the artist has elongated and turned the head of the “Obama” to add slightly more subtlety to the expression, and to enhance the perception that he has turned to look at the viewer. But my impression is that the smile is a charming one and meant to be benign.
Here, and on other comment threads, good people seem to disagree about what the image conveys.

Posted by: Copeland | Jul 15 2008 17:15 utc | 35

Regardless of political or religious significance, a magazine’s cover’s purpose is to boost sales of the magazine. Or at least raise people’s awareness of it. If this particular cover hasn’t done the former, it certainly has the latter.
Success. Yay, capitalism, and let all the other chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Pyrrho | Jul 15 2008 17:59 utc | 37

The Obama cartoon from this perspective, represents the unadulterated dread of the elite social class should he (and his associated unseemly ilk) actually be elected, and actually inhabit the the hallowed halls of the WHITE HOUSE. What this means is that the the upper crust class is declaring war and are gearing up for a full spectrum snob attack that will make the previous outsider wars on the peanut farmer and the Arky smoosher read like an untimely fart at the country club board meeting.
Anna missed at #17 gets the point exactly. He isn’t like them and they know it at the blood level. These kind of magazines have profiled Bush’s disasters but have been very quiet on his character issues. Another recent exhibit was Vanity Fair’s hit piece on Bill Clinton. I have read these magazines for years and nothing they have printed about Bush approaches the disrespect Clinton got in his years of office (and now even, eight friggin years later). Beware the elites is all I have to say.

Posted by: christiana | Jul 15 2008 18:52 utc | 39

christiana
i am of the opinion that the journalists of my generation & the generations that have followed them – are for all intents & purposes, scum
they are caricatures of caricatures – of the generation before them
the best of them today like a pilger or a fisk – a small, indeed a very small number of men & women though ‘respected’ are completely isolated from the media of the monsters
& the concentration of the media in the last 20 years has given it over to businessmen like murdoch so laden with corruption – it is not surprising that he produces both corrupt editors & journalists
a once honourable profession of an i f stone or a wilfred burchett – has been debased beyond repair. i prefer scholars any day of the week – they do not hide their prejudices behind their prostitution

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 15 2008 19:04 utc | 41

..so much publicity regarding the islamofascist meme in the cover … why no one is addressing the origin of the meme and why, in the nyr’s explanation “meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd.” the word ‘islamofascist’ is not spoken……
You are saying that the ‘origin’ embedded in this drawing ought to be taboo
no cigar Copeland. i am saying that if the newyorker’s reasonings for using it on their cover to hold up a mirror to prejudice etc then it would make sense if people had an idea of where the origin can from, or how it got imbedded with the image of obama, which i demonstrated in my #2 link. it is not like the msm subjects us to a decent explanation of why islam has become our enemy. it’s not like we haven’t invested in its growth and for what purpose might that be. to be clear I am saying that the ‘origin’ embedded in this drawing ought NOT to be taboo.
i would love to have a discussion in this country about ratcheting up the fear of islam and how that’s worked for us.
Annie, Obama isn’t a Muslim, so the New Yorker isn’t taking ‘his’ religion and using it.
i know that. just because it isn’t Obama’s religion doesn’t mean it isn’t ‘a persons’ (those people being ..muslims) that is why i ask ensley could you point out which of those other satires was solely based on fallacy? in my analogy @27 the subject of the cartoon wasn’t a jew either. nor does one have use the demonization thru physical charactaristics. if you review my reasoning for being offended by the cartoon in my letter to the newyorker it is NOT about the offense to obama, it is about perpetuating the stereotype of ‘radical islam’ and humping it all the way thru the campaign (and then not even NAMING it in the explanation!).
by your question it would mean that jews wouldn’t be offended if mcCain was characterized in a satire by insulting jewish stereotypes attributed to him?
first of all, why should being labeled a religion you aren’t be an insult anyway? this just goes to show how imbedded our stereotypes of muslims are. but it isn’t enough to accuse, or allude that he is muslim. it has to be a radical muslim for isn’t it fairly transparent that we are being programmed to react to islam and muslims as if this was synonymous w/radical?
terra = islam .. obama= islam…obama = terra
no? I don’t buy the AIPAC-stroking theory, as I’ve never detected any very pro-Israeli stance at the magazine
this isn’t about being pro israel. it is about perpetuating anti muslim/radical islam something the zionists have invested a fortune in. could it be this is completely lost on the editor of the newyorker? sure, but exactly who pray tell do you think he was referring to “hold up a mirror to prejudice” because i am not seeing any mirror being held up in front of the people who have invested the most energy and money getting the american public to understand islam as being radical.
thanks jake!

Posted by: annie | Jul 15 2008 19:56 utc | 43

Not sure that your Kos link answers any questions, Annie. But your outrage makes perfect sense, as do all the reactions to this cover – it’s a fairly crude piece of work, and probably not worth the effort to deconstruct it (though of course the amount of brain electricity due to be expended on this theme in the coming weeks could no doubt power California until the election).
It’s subjective. I’m not fond of O, so I don’t really care if it’s hurtful to him. To me he doesn’t look like a ‘Moslem’ but a specific type of militant (same as when I see KKK images: I think ‘fascist wanker’ not ‘Christian’). It was always shocking how easy it was to demonize more than a billion people of immense cultural diversity.
Fisk believes that the entire animus between the USA and ‘Islam’ – I hate to use that word as if it describes some kind of evil empire when it applies neither to any geographical nor ethnic entity – is due to the Palestinian situation and the failure of the US to understand anything – cultural, religious, humanitarian – about its significance to the people who live in the Middle East, and the knee-jerk US impulse, left over from the Cold War (and inherited from Britain and France), to prop up dictators over populist governments in the region (I’m not excusing Europe in this, I just know less about the history in that dept.) – aggressive ignorance, really. Which, now I look at it, DOES tie in to your Kos link after all.

Posted by: Tantalus | Jul 15 2008 21:28 utc | 45

i have almost no sympathy for obama but after all is said & done – i know a lynching when i see it
whether it is done by southern crackers in mississipi – or cultivated new york jews at the new yorker
what w e dubois, malcolm x, huey newton have all said remains true – america remains a deeply deeply racist culture & nearly everything that has to do with the ‘peripheral’ acts – rev wright, jesse jackson etc are just more evidence of this most corrupt & deadening malignancy in american culture
until he is literally ‘white-washed’ & renounces all the negritude he has within him he will not win even against a man who is obvioussly within the realms of senile dementia & seems literally, a dangerous man
the chicago streets gave america a real hero & his name was fred hampton – a man who touched many many people not only in chicago but in the world – i know people who have been permanantly touched by him – well this man was gunned down in his bed in the early morning bu chicago cops under the direct orders of hoover & the fbi
the only black man white american culture wants to see is one dancing
or if the truth be told – they would still prefer that man to be dancing from a rope
all the discreet discourses of the late 20th & early 21st century do not hide the essential
barbarism that is at the core of american culture
that has always been the reason it is so easy for them to kill the other whether they were vietnamese, latin american or the people of the middle east
behind all the bullshit america wants itself to be one gated community where their fear can be dominated – even a cursory reading of the crudest of psychology texts would tell them the opposite becomes the truth & it is clear today by the action & reaction to this thing in the new yorker that america has been swallowed by its own fear & its shitting it out on the rest of us

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 15 2008 22:10 utc | 47

Oh forgot. The zionist bit will not fit into this picture. Reason 1 is that anti-semitism is taboo and off the table and people have even more trouble distingushing between anti-semitism and anti-zionism and anti-israel. Throw pro-palestinian in there and you nearly have to buldoze the chaos away. Obama has made it very difficult by his adherence to the center. He’s not going to change, certainly not before his trip to Israel and other countries…
It would be a very brave New Yorker cover if it even began to approach the non-hard right Israeli view of the world. Not going to happen yet.

Posted by: YY | Jul 16 2008 0:53 utc | 49

people get very emntionally attached to their politicians for some reason, when time and again these leaders show themselves to be far from worthy
even if there were a very pro Obama story inside that played off that cover, outlining the stereotypical slurs and knocking them down
if you don’t pick it up…
nice job
I guess we’ll know when the machines decide in Nov. whether or not America is ready for a black prez

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 16 2008 8:08 utc | 51

#50 Obama’s recent pontifications about a speedy exit fail to acknowledge the issue of an ‘enduring’ amerikan presence.
You know, once the ball starts rolling on withdrawal, it is going to be very hard to stop, whether O. wants it or not. People will start thinking about the whole pointlessness of it all, and there’ll be no intermediate point where a halt can be called. As it stands, O. is quite unrealistic about the possibilities.

Posted by: alex | Jul 16 2008 11:40 utc | 53

Toles: ironic.

Posted by: beq | Jul 16 2008 14:36 utc | 55