Toadfish Monastery

Despite we normally don't sink in the 'news cycle' I was curious about what you siblings think of this:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/14/article-0-01F23B3C00000578-533_468x685.jpg)
Is this the classic case of unforeseen consequences, or a calculated publicity coup?

If I had just seen it at the news stand without hearing all this hollering about it, I would probably have just thought it was a pretty weak bit of satire all the way around.

It looks half-hearted to me. Like Blitt wasn't really into it. I think the controvery was pre-designed to benefit The New Yorker. Feh..

Here's another New Yorker cover from back during the primaries:

(http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/124999_l.jpg)

I thought that one was funny, and this one's funny, too. The New Yorker is a magazine with a readership that really does consist mostly of "elitist" liberals, I think. The target audience understands the joke, I think, understands what it's a commentary on, and though reaction may be varied, I don't think many people who subscribe to the New Yorker were genuinely offended. Unfortunately, the mass media latched onto it, and people who had no idea about the New Yorker's usual political platform and preferred form of satire got all wound up.

Politically, though, it can't do Obama any harm.

That one is funny, but I see the current one as a tool that some in the right will use to say that even the new yorker thinks Obama is a muslim terrorist or something of the sort. Leave it on internal pages with the title of an article about the nonsense and it works perfectly, but leaving it on the front page with no caption, and you get the average passerby reading it in a completely different context.

Actually I would love to read letters from regular readers on the subject to gather how 'on target' was the cartoon.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 16, 2008, 04:50:16 PM
That one is funny, but I see the current one as a tool that some in the right will use to say that even the new yorker thinks Obama is a muslim terrorist or something of the sort. Leave it on internal pages with the title of an article about the nonsense and it works perfectly, but leaving it on the front page with no caption, and you get the average passerby reading it in a completely different context.

I disagree. The media frenzy has made the intentions of the cartoonist perfectly clear to the public, and the debate has moved away from that. No way the right could use it, except to convince more uneducated rednecks they already have convinced anyway.

Same for the average passerby - even without the media coverage. I see three possible responses:
1. Ha, that's funny, it parodies the false rumors the right has been circulating about Obama.
2. What terrible racism and ignorance that picture exhibits!
3. See, cousin, I told you he was a Muslim!

Responses 1 and 2 do nothing to detract from Obama, and there's no hope anyway for the one that responds with 3.

Quote from: Alpaca on July 16, 2008, 05:04:21 PM
No way the right could use it, except to convince more uneducated rednecks they already have convinced anyway.

I wouldn't be so sure, although I was surprised to see O'Reilly condemning it. In politics everything is valid (remember the so-called boat veterans on '04?) and I bet Hannity will be placing the cartoon as a background very soon...

...not as funny as when they had Charles Addams on cartoons.

Quote from: Alpaca on July 16, 2008, 05:04:21 PM

3. See, cousin, I told you he was a Muslim!

Shouldn't that be "See, CousinSisterWife, I..."

:mrgreen:
======================

It's satire, aimed at the New Yorker's demographic. Lots of them evidently didn't care for it, though. Maybe the commentators that have said that there's little room left for satire when the Right Wing has misunderstood it and trampled it underfoot so long, are right.

I do like the little touches there in that Oval-ish Office. The OBL portrait, the burning flag...

I heard this on NPR's Talk Of The Nation the other day.

Linky (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92556059)

It's worth listening to, if you've the time.

You can hear what Mike Peters (of Mother Goose & Grimm and his political cartoons fame) says about it.

QuotePulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Mike Peters, the man behind the Mother Goose and Grimm cartoon strip, speaks with former New Yorker staff writer and artist Art Spiegelman about whether the magazine's cover missed the mark and reinforced stereotypes, or if it did its job.

The problem in my view is that it is not over the top enough. As "weak" as it is now, it can be used to reinforce the stereotypes, not demonstrating them as ridiculous as they are. Obama could sprout some little horns, have a speach bubble saying "Yes! We have overfulfilled the monthly abortion quota by 666%!" etc.

There is btw a demand that they should do a Son of Cain cartoon on the next cover for balance.
Something like this
(http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/library/horseymccain.jpg)
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/library/horseymccain.jpg

I dont understand what it is trying to say.. are there people who actually think Obama is a muslim? Who is the lady? what are they doing?

For his detractors he is a faithless man(?) of many faithes and faces. He's an atheist heretic Christian Muslim Hinduist Jewish anti-semite. Also a gay child-molester ravishing our virgins. Some say, he's the Antichrist but that opinion is opposed by those that expect him (the AC) to be female. Not to forget that he's just black enough to qualify as a n-word but too white to appeal to the other n-words. He is also rumored to have fathered black children.

can we have another option on the poll for

goping straight over my head because i have no idea who these people are or what they are doing

Quote from: goat starer on July 17, 2008, 09:36:12 AM
I dont understand what it is trying to say.. are there people who actually think Obama is a muslim? Who is the lady? what are they doing?

From what I understand from talking to one old fart in Florida most people over 70 are certain that Obama is a Muslim.  Reverend Wright is actually and Imam regardless of the fact that he's a "Christian."

The youth vote really needs to get out, especially in Florida. 

I see my self as a pretty well educated European, but it is through contact with people like you here on TFM I've come to know a bit about the way of the New Yorker.

I know it's satire but to a lot of Europeans (I guess at least if you look away from the British isles) The New Yorker could might as well be a magazine like the Economist or perhaps Der Spiegel who also have caricatures on the front pages now and then, most of us doesn't know what kind of magazine The New Yorker is.

This picture had a huge media coverage even here but there was no background information about the Magazine at all. Some media here has even drawn parallels to the Danish so called Muhammad caricatures which shows that even the journalists seem to have missed the point with the picture.

I think, like Swato, that the satire is too weak. It looks much more like a scurrilous portrait made by his (more fanatic) enemies to show what will happen if he wins than it look like a high end caricature from a magazine making fun of peoples prejudices about him.
Ambiguousness can be great fun as an instrument in pictures but it is a tool hard to master.

I find this picture crude and not funny at all but not due to any of the poll suggestions.
Caricatures are difficult to draw (even the kind one can have done for a € or two at a fair or a side walk) political caricatures especially those who doesn't just want to make fun of for example a presidents sexual conquests or flaws in appearance or personality in general, but want to make fun of others using the caricature as a laughing mirror on the audience are extremely hard to execute well and this one simply doesn't cut it. 

nobody hass told me who the lady is yet. Is it his wife?

Yes, goat, it's his wife, who is apparently a terrifyingly independent woman/black panther to some folks out there.

I saw this cartoon, without any attached hints or knowledge of the New Yorker.

My instant response:  satire, cruel satire, racist, unhelpful.

However, I doubt as Darlica said I think, that many Europeans will have "got it". Most of my (educated) friends don't understand half of what I say when it is based on my understanding of all things U.S. which has benefited from being a Toadfish.

I'm with Darlica and Swato, the art itself is weak. In order to truly spoof, it should have gone over the top.

On second thought, I have a suspicion that the cartoonist may well have liked to go over the top, but may have been timid because of fears of racism, maybe? I mean, if I was asked to do this cover, I would worry about this, too. My first instinct would have been to make Ms. Obama look like  blaxsploitation sensation Foxy Brown, and Barrack to look like Louis Farrakhan. But I would never do that, because it would be too insensitive and controversial.

Actually, it did go way, way over the top....

The New Yorker's audience is liberal, middle-to-upper class readership, highly educated (mostly) and so on. 

I suppose it's akin to a math joke, where there's one coefficient out of place, and math geeks immediately see that, and laugh.  The rest of the "great unwashed" (i.e. not a math geek, i.e. me and most other folks) go, "hunh?"  Or "that's just stupid" or similar.

So, too with the cartoon-- those who already think Obama is evil incarnate, see the cartoon, and just like Dianne in Cheers*, say, "See?" with smug satisfaction.   The actual paid subscribers to the New Yorker, likely get it, and laugh, or else write letters of complaint, or some will cancel.

On the other hand, some non-subscribers will hear about the cartoon, and likely subscribe-- those last two will likely cancel each other out. 

But, the vast majority of Americans, and most non-Americans, not knowing the readership of the New Yorker will likely have mixed responses-- mostly of the "Hunh?" variety.

The breakdown of the cartoon, though, encompasses nearly all the "talking points" the ultra-right have been complaining about, with regards to Obama.   In some ways, it's a beautiful summary of the "criticisms" of the ultra-right.   (which goes to show, that they don't have any REAL criticism of Obama at all.... none that are truly substantial, if they have to make up sh~t like this).

To sum-up the points the picture covers:

The fist-bump was something Obama and his wife did together, when they one one of the critical primaries.  It was a jubilant sign between themselves, celebrating a victory.  Not unlike a "high five" or a hip-to-hip bump.   But the rabid-right tried to spin that into something sinister...

The Muslim headdress on Obama is a reflection that a significant fraction of rabid-right ignorants actually think he's either a secret muslim, a public muslim or at the very least "in bed" with Muslims, i.e. a Muslim sympathizer.   This last-- that he's sympathetic to Muslims is the only one that is likely true.  He converted to Christianity at an early age, and so far as ANYONE can uncover, still claims allegiance to Christianity.   But, in this "all Muslims are automatically Terriers err Turrists" knee-jerk mentality of the rabid right, even being sympathetic is seen as "bad".

The rest of the Muslim gear (robe, picture of Osama on the wall) is just window-dressing to the Muslim theme.

The burning flag in the fireplace, is an oblique reference to the fact that Obama seldom wears a flag pin-- he has said that's pretentious (it is).  And NOT a measure of patriotism (it's not).  But, apparently he's bowed to pressure, and sports one now, I'm told.

His wife's gear (including cammo pants and the AK-47 rifle) is a nod to her activism-- I'm not as familiar with what she's been up to (Chatty might know) but I suspect it's been for causes that the rabid right don't particularly care for, so they tried to paint her as some sort of activist, and in the worst light. 

My response to that is, "so? Don't you think ALL potential and actual First Ladies are/would be activists?  By definition?  In that, unless they are dead to the world, at the least, they are actively supporting their husband's campaign?"   But, apparently, to the non-thinking rabid-right, "activist" translates to "terrier" err "turrist"....

The rest of the cartoon appears to be a room in the White House, thus setting the time-frame for the piece:  after Obama wins the White House.

Hope this helps!  :mrgreen:

____________

<sub>* the award-winning episode with John Cleese [nee of Monty Python] as a psychiatrist friend of Frasier's.   Sam and Dianne were engaged, and Frasier as a wedding present purchased a pre-nup session for them, from his friend.  It was pretty much a disaster, with Cleese's character initally counseling them to stay as far away from each other as possible.   Dianne cannot possibly accept that, and the show is about her attempts to convince Cleese that they are a "perfect couple".   At the end, in a fit of frustration, Cleese exclaims, "I was totally wrong.  You are completely right, in fact" he goes to the window, throws open the shutters and shouts, "Don't bother getting married, anyone-- it's been done".

At the end of this long tirade as ONLY Cleese can do, when he finally winds down, and the sarcasm is so thick you could use it to build a bridge, Dianne turns to Sam, and says, "See?"</sub>

Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 04:40:29 PM
I saw this cartoon, without any attached hints or knowledge of the New Yorker.

My instant response:  satire, cruel satire, racist, unhelpful.

However, I doubt as Darlica said I think, that many Europeans will have "got it". Most of my (educated) friends don't understand half of what I say when it is based on my understanding of all things U.S. which has benefited from being a Toadfish.

Even so, don't the pastel shades, the font of the title and the style of the whole thing whisper cosmopolitan liberal irony?  Hard for me to be sure because I knew the magazine's reputation beforehand. 

Quote from: beagle on July 17, 2008, 08:42:08 PM
Even so, don't the pastel shades, the font of the title and the style of the whole thing whisper cosmopolitan liberal irony?  Hard for me to be sure because I knew the magazine's reputation beforehand. 

Well now you mention it, yes I suppose so. Must have been subliminal. But is the meaningfulness of the style etched into everyone's brain?

In any case, we have now had a pronouncement. Andrew Neil, This Week, tonight, (weekly politics round up) hath saideth: racist; thought New Yorker was liberal. His guests agreed. On the other hand, what percentage of Brits will have watched the program?

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on July 17, 2008, 07:58:41 PM
The Muslim headdress on Obama is a reflection that a significant fraction of rabid-right ignorants actually think he's either a secret muslim, a public muslim or at the very least "in bed" with Muslims, i.e. a Muslim sympathizer.   This last-- that he's sympathetic to Muslims is the only one that is likely true.  He converted to Christianity at an early age, and so far as ANYONE can uncover, still claims allegiance to Christianity.   But, in this "all Muslims are automatically Terriers err Turrists" knee-jerk mentality of the rabid right, even being sympathetic is seen as "bad".

Oh, I figured it was spoofing this photo of Barack in Kenya:
(http://image.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/feb/26/2/GD6382720@epa01266971-(FILE)-A--3508.jpg)

???



;)

Mrs. Obama did a paper during her university career (sociology, Princeton) in which she gauged the current 'radicalness' of the earlier 'radicalized' Black graduates of that institution.

From some phrases in that document, discussing the change that maturity and responsibility had made in the early Black 'radical' movement on the Princeton campus, the RWNB (Reich Wing Nut Burgers) deduced that she was a "radical" of the Black Panther-type, prepared to DEESTROY UUHHMURRICUH!!! Michelle Obama is a corporate lawyer with a huge healthcare organization. she's rather firmly entrenched in corporate America, and earns more than double her husband's Senatorial salary.

The fist bump (or "terrrrist fist jab") is a new spin on the high five. Nothing more.

About 45 seconds after the Faux Snooze Morning Morons called it "a terrorist fist jab" somebody came up with a photo of GHW Bush doing the SAME thing at an earlier time, with a blonde female tennis partner.

The New Yorker is often audacious in their covers. The happened to have chose an cover artist for that particular cover that doesn't work as "strong"...and they counted on people reading the title of the cover story.

That is supposed to be the Oval Office, BTW, the "seat" of the Presidency. ::) (The seat of the presidency is wherever the President's ass is.)

Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 18, 2008, 12:12:03 AM
In any case, we have now had a pronouncement. Andrew Neil, This Week, tonight, (weekly politics round up) hath saideth: racist; thought New Yorker was liberal. His guests agreed. On the other hand, what percentage of Brits will have watched the program?

That's the way it usually works. As soon as one person says something is racist all the others have to agree or it's proof they are being "institutionally racist" themselves. It's the sort of process that ends up with nursery school teachers being given guidelines on checking out toddlers for thoughtcrime.

Would have thought A.N. would have been smart enough to realize a sophisticated parody of racial stereotyping is not the same as a racist joke though.  Probably he is, but didn't think it worth being quoted out of context on later, or being blasted for in a Guardian editorial.

May I suggest a nice photo of the Brooklyn Bridge for the next issue?

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on July 18, 2008, 06:38:01 AM

That is supposed to be the Oval Office,

an oval office? whatever next. that is typical of the western capitalist decadance of america. it is simply a waste of the space in the corners which could otherwise be used for the growing of beetroot.

Beetroot??

Nah, it's not worth putting in a crop.

The only thing that can grow in the polluted soil of DC is graft, corruption and maybe, just a little bit of Hope.

Quote from: beagle on July 18, 2008, 07:42:28 AM
...........It's the sort of process that ends up with nursery school teachers being given guidelines on checking out toddlers for thoughtcrime.

Would have thought A.N. would have been smart enough to realize a sophisticated parody of racial stereotyping is not the same as a racist joke though.  Probably he is, but didn't think it worth being quoted out of context on later, or being blasted for in a Guardian editorial.

I'm sure he is (smart enough). I'm sure he did realize. I'm afraid I wasn't concentrating hard enough to access all the nuances, but they were there in the lilt of his voice, and the "special guest" and the steering of the program towards race relations, knife crime, inner city estates and education on the back of it.......  I need to polish my brain.

Quote from: King Goat

Quote from: Sibling Chatty
That is supposed to be the Oval Office,

an oval office? whatever next. that is typical of the western capitalist decadance of america. it is simply a waste of the space in the corners which could otherwise be used for the growing of beetroot.

At least it isn't a Star Chamber - that really would waste space in the pointy bits.

I'm not so sure a rectangle is that good either. People at one end on one side cannot see people on the other end on their side. Has anyone run an analysis of the effect or the way it may be taken advantage of?  All government should be virtual - discuss!!

"Good" governments tent to be virtual (they virtually don't do a thing). The ones that do something usually make the wrong choices*.

*I'm sure beagle would be happy with that statement ;)