Add me to the list of people who think the furor over the New Yorker cartoon is way overblown. If Jake Tapper really thinks that "It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing", he needs to get out of the coastal cities. I'm pretty sure the right wing hasn't taken its marching orders from The New Yorker for at least twenty years.
Update Ta-Nehisi disagrees.
Coates is right: This is how many people view the Obamas, which makes it extraordinarily difficult to satirize.
I propose that we ban satire until there are no more New Yorker-reading heartland conservatives that could misinterpret it as support for those emails they keep sending around.
Hey Megan,
I don't so much disagree. I think outrage is overrated, and so I'm not fond of watching public figures talk about how "offended" they are, no matter the color. That said, I do think it's an ineffective, to put it mildly, bit of satire.
While perception is reality I'd wager this is like Stephen Colbert going to the correspondent's dinner and basically deciding to rip the whole room apart. Its funny to watch but probably would piss you off if aimed at you. Like the cartoon linked below its good the hostess finds it funny, but if someone wanted to really lampoon waiting in line for an Iphone and comparisons to refugees (in short taking a passing comment and going way off the diving board)they could have gone a decidedly more Carlin route and it would be anything but funny to our hostess. To everyone else though it would be cruelly humorous.
Do I find it offensive, no, I kind of expect it. I'm waiting for a picture of John McCain with the facial expression of the picture Ezra Klein has up (wide-eyed, a little insane), in a walker, computer prominently displayed, with a Vietnamese soldier in the background about to crack the whip. Would I find it funny if I were John McCain, no and the cartoonist would be wise to maintain a large distance from my presence. But if I'm Chris in Hoboken, Boston, Atlanta, or Phoenix I'd get a chuckle.
The contention that the New Yorker cover is irrelevant because no one outside us sophisticates will see it ... well, to state it is to puncture it. It is quite difficult to see it anything other than sophomoric snarkiness, unless it yet another example of the racially based condescension Obama has suffered in the Republican ostensible "liberal" media.
Coates-
I suppose its ineffective in that satire is supposed to inspire laughter with a hint of deeper thought. This has inspired dirty little disownments, and accusations of poor taste. But wouldn't you say that satire as a whole doesn't really work in the mainstream? Bill Maher makes conservatives bleed with rage when he talks. And Limbaugh makes pacifists think about him accidentally overdosing. The Boondocks, while funny in many circles, is absolutely insane. As a whole wouldn't you say that humor itself exacerbates these perceived grievances?
I propose that we ban satire until there are no more New Yorker-reading heartland conservatives that could misinterpret it as support for those emails they keep sending around. - mike
Indeed. I second this proposal, and furthermore, suggest enforcing it until there also are no more coastal liberals that could misinterpret it as red meat for heartland conservatives!
I'm just outraged that, despite willing to run that magazine cover, no one seems to have yet independently discovered "Biraq" Hussein Osama.
Thank you Paul and Mike for proving my point:)
As I also posted on Coates' site, George Bush has endured seven and a half years of being caricatured as a chimp (try that one on the Obamas!), and compared unfavorably with Hitler and the Anti-Christ, and he hasn't whined or bleated about it. So liberals need to man up.
"A Modest Proposal" was an offensive outrage because, you know, there actually were cannibals in the world who might have read it and taken it as support for their beliefs.
Occam--
There's one small difference. Those caricatures of Bush were largely a result of the things Bush DID. These caricatures of Obama are largely a result of who Obama IS. Outlets like The New Republic or The New York Times weren't calling Bush Hitler or Chimp, but the National Review has frequently made the Obama/Osama 'allusion' and compared Obama to Hitler. There is something substantially different about mocking a man's facial features and perceived intelligence (Bush=chimp) and hinting that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America.
Anyone worried about some idiot in Kansas seeing the cover of the New Yorker as confirming his irrational beliefs about Obama should really quesiton their faith in democracy, not the judgment of the New Yorker editors.
Also, the amount of oplenly bigoted beliefs about "dumb white hicks from flyover states" is pretty incredible, particularly in left-leaning circles. Imagine openly chiding "dumb black thugs from the ghetto" (specifically pointing to those characteristics, not implying them) and then having fifty other commenters cheer you on for it.
Humor almost invariably offends someone's sensibilities. Really, we should be beyond the point of having a massive uproar every time someone says something we don't like, and we should at least be WAY above rationalizing our knee-jerk reactions (which is my impression of the Ta-Nehisi objections)
2:22,
Exactly right, Ta-Nehisi struck me as saying "Boy, I didn't like how those white people drew the Obamas. I think I'll say that on my blog and add a blurb about how it could harm Obama's campaign because a tiny minority of people might not get the irony of the cover."
ARRGH! Angriness! Rabble rabble!
I think, because it's the new yorker, we all bend over backwards to make a subtle critique. That's not what this cover deserves.
Despite the intent, the satire is not funny or effective. (I doubt many people really looked at that and thought, "Oh snap! In your face, nameless paranoid emailer.") On the contrary, the cover traffics in blatant racism, damages the Obamas rather than their adversaries, and it's a shame that the cover will get such broad circulation.
"Boy, I didn't like how those white people drew the Obamas. I think I'll say that on my blog and add a blurb about how it could harm Obama's campaign because a tiny minority of people might not get the irony of the cover."
You found me out. I'll have to be more clever next time...
Megan, you're exactly right. There is simply no large pool of undecided voters who will see the New Yorker and decided that there must be something to that 'Obama is a muslim' rumor that they've heard. Anyone that thinks differently needs to get out more.
This is starting to resemble a critique on an art piece. Unfortunately the cover is going to get much more coverage than the article Ryan Lizza wrote. That I thought was a very good piece. Some may call it a hit piece, but actually reading it I didn't get that vibe. It does present the idea of Obama the POLITICIAN a severely underscored point on all counts.
This cover is getting way too much attention too quickly. At this rate Obama's going to have an official remark about it by the end of the day (and I mean Obama personally). I don't know why so many people are surprised, outraged, or shocked, its the same low-blow stuff we've had in the internet era.
Rick, what exactly did Bush do to look like a chimpanzee?
Nice try, but no sale. Bush has been smeared with scurrilous caricatures from day one, and no one has bleated about it. Face it: you don’t like the shoe being on the other foot. It’s fair and reasonable when it happens to someone you don’t like, but patently unfair when it happens to someone you do. Let’s bear in mind that The New Yorker is not exactly right wing, so this is at worst a “friendly fire” problem. Accept it, and move on. Politics is a rough game. Man up.
So it would be OK to portray Obama as a chimp? Let’s face it – he kind of looks like one too, with those ears. That would be OK with you?
Last, let’s face it, there is a real question about Obama’s patriotism (and especially in view of the lack thereof of his wife, his erstwhile pastor, his close association with an unrepentant terrorist, not to mention the ridiculous lapel pin business) – it’s why the cover has drawn attention. A cover implying that McCain was unpatriotic would have no resonance whatever. QED. Imagine the converse: a cover depicting Obama as too old and tired and infirm to be President would similarly have no legs, and for the same reason: it’s not an issue.
"Last, let’s face it, there is a real question about Obama’s patriotism"
Uh, no there isn't.
Hi Megan. I'm not saying the New Yorker is read by conservatives. I'm saying the image can easily be coopted by those who believe that the talented Barry Blitt captured the Obamas accurately -- that it was not a caricature so much as a portrait.
Of course there is. There's a huge question, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, any more than we'd be having one about whether Obama was young and vigorous enough to be President.
Who really thinks that Obama isn't patriotic? Its about as sensible a question as to whether John McCain is a Manchurian candidate. And we aren't having this discussion--no one is seriously arguing that Obama isn't patriotic. The right-wing blogosphere, the National Review, and right-wing talk show hosts have smeared Obama as unpatriotic. No one has argued it, because its a smear, not an argument. There are no facts. It will only convince the ignorant or hateful. The New Yorker, obviously, is satirizing the right-wingers. The problem is that it is so effin hard to satirize their smears, because one can't exaggerate the depravity and vacuity of the smears.
"And we aren't having this discussion--no one is seriously arguing that Obama isn't patriotic."
This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "La la la la. I can't hear you!" It gets easy when you just claim everything you disagree with is a smear rather than an argument. I really think I should work that line of reasoning into my next brief.
rickm - Are we still allowed to think that Michelle isn't patriotic?
I'm kidding (sort of) - I don't think that either hate America, I just think that they have that boomer-liberal, "I love America for what it can become [if you elect me]" sort of patriotism, to paraphrase HRC's mangling of the pledge. I also think that he's a leftie with a program that would be very bad for America, but I don't think he plans to sabotage America, he's just a naive lefty.
I do.
Turn it around: what reason is there to think that Obama is patriotic? What has he ever said or done that would make anyone who isn't starry-eyed think he's patriotic? Can you give me an example? I'm serious - I'd really like to know.
His wife isn't patriotic. It took hubby's candidacy to make her proud of this country for the first time in her adult life. Not exactly Nathan Hale, is she? She practically seethes with anger, for reasons that surpasseth all understanding. Why does she feel aggrieved? She's having (to all appearances) a great life.
Turn it around. Suppose McCain's wife, commenting on the Olympics, said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of American blacks. No problem?
His former pastor certainly isn't. If someone shouting "God damn America" isn't unpatriotic, then who is? And please don't tell me young Barry didn't pick up a teeny-weeny inkling of Wright's viewpoints in 20 years' time, because if you do, I'll question how Obama could take DinnerJacket's measure in 20 minutes. Anyone who had a shred of patriotism would have gotten up and walked out of the church on the basis of that sermon alone, even hearing about it secondhand. (And if it were a one-off, it would have caused enough of a splash that everyone in the church would be talking about it. True? "The day the Reverend lost it.")
Turn this one around too. Suppose McCain's pastor said "God damn the blacks." No problem?
His associate, Bill Ayers, in whose home Obama opened his first campaign, is, shall we say, a lukewarm patriot? Or is bombing now the highest form of patriotism? Ayers himself admitted his guilt as a terrorist ("guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country"). Plus "I regret we didn't do more." Can't beat that for patriotism!
Let's continue turning statements around. Suppose McCain announced his Senatorial campaign in the home of a man who said he was "guilty as sin" of riding with the KKK, and his only regret was that he didn't do more to keep the blacks down. No problem, right?
Even the lapel flag business, while mundane and prosaic, was disturbing. First, he puts it on as a pro forma move. Then he goes out of his way to make a point of taking it off, mumbling something about "true patriotism." (Thereby garnering support from the hard left, presumably.) Then the results come in from the polls and the focus groups, and he puts it back on. Please. Somewhere in there he was clearly evincing gross and cynical expediency,
In and of itself, the lapel pin was meaningless. But Obama imbued it with significance by making a statement about it, so presumably he meant for us to draw an inference about him from the whole matter. And you know what? I did. Suppose someone voted against making MLK's birthday a holiday. What inference would you draw? Sure, maybe he really thinks there are too many holidays, but... Admit it: you'd be screaming he was racist.
So it's not a smear, it's a perfectly reasonable question. I'm not ignorant, and I don't hate Obama. He seems perfectly likeable. I have a few friends who, like Obama, are not patriotic. I just don't want them as President, that's all.
On reading Holdfast's comment, I should clarify my own. I don't think Obama hates America. I just think he can pretty much can take it or leave it, and he just happens to be living here now. Two cheers for America, that sort of thing.
Michelle I think has some real issues with America on a racial basis, but lacking experience of other countries and not being excessively bright, fails to grasp how much better off blacks are in the U.S. than anywhere else that I've ever seen (and that includes RSA).
Wright and Ayers straight-up hate America, in practically their own words. I don't think anyone disputes that.
Miande:
"suffered in the Republican ostensible "liberal" media."
Congrats, you managed to use all English words, yet your comment makes no friggin sense whatsoever.
Every Joke Has a Victim
Sometimes it is a friendly fire incident.
"....hinting that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America."
But doesn't he have known associations with known terrorists.......like William Ayers?
That's right......another vast right wing conspiracy.......
This comment has been deleted because of obscene content
I'm mostly pissed off that my mailman has stopped delivering my mail. I pay for that damn rag and I don't have it. FWIW, I see the cover as pure satire, but I can understand why people (who have no faith in the polis--I'll leave it to others to argue about whether they should) would be concerned by it.
If Jake Tapper really thinks that "It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing", he needs to get out of the coastal cities.
I kept getting those Obama/Muslim chain-letters from older Democrat relatives, not Republican friends.
I found it odd having to explain to, for instance, my retired union-guy Uncle that Obama, whose plans and ideas I consider almost uniformly awful, is not a Muslim who was raised in a Madrassah by two Muslim fathers and that, if that was the only thing he didn't like about the guy, it was BS and he should probably go ahead and vote for him.
Having noted this, I think it would be nice for Tapper to elaborate on just why he thinks that quasi-racist smears--that, from what I can tell, seem to have originated with Clinton supporters (or, perhaps, the campaign itself) as a tool to target blue-collar Democrats--are something that should be blamed, in his revisionist history, on "the right-wing."
Occum,
I tend to try to avoid the "outrage of the day" coverage--Gramm says this, McCain's ex-wife says this, Obama's pastor says that--and just vote for the guy who is likely to do the lowest number of things that I disagree with (in this case, McCain, more because of Congress than anything) but think you've made some valid points that I, at least, don't characterize as smears (though Obama's association with Ayers, to me, is far more telling than the fact that a young, black aspiring politician in a predominantly black district joined the largest black church, which happened to be pastored by a hateful jerk).
I do quibble with the importance of the lapel pin quabble. It was such an abnormally silly thing to be brought up in a Presidential campaign that Obama's mishandling of it doesn't tell me anything more about him than GHW Bush's Broccoli kerfluffle. It was just an instance of a politician being hit with something so ludicrous and irrelevant it clearly caught him confused and off-guard. My opinion is that it, like the "War on Christmas," is an fake issue that never should have come up.
Shinyk, I can't say I disagree re the lapel pin. If he'd never put one on, or sometimes wore it and sometimes not, it would be nothing at all. Putting it on, and then making a public point of having taken it off, made it something, and that more important than the broccoli kerfuffle. He made a statement about it: what message was he trying to convey?
Politicians have blown up their careers for less. George Allen's "macaca" statement was clearly something he blurted out in the heat of the moment, but it pretty much did for him.
I also agree re the "outrage of the day." The problem with Obama is that he's just sort of beamed down from Mars. People in witness protection probably have more back story. He has no track record, so we're reduced to using ouija boards and sheep entrails to figure out a) what kind of man he is, and b) what he would likely do.
For example, what exactly did he do as a "community organizer?" I have no idea. None. (For that matter, what does any "community organizer" do?) Who hires them? Who pays them? To do what? How does it differ, if at all, from being a ward heeler (which is kind of what it sounds like, and would explain Obama's meteoric rise)?
Sorry, afterthought. Maybe this will put my perspective into context. Suppose your wife/girlfriend asks, "Do you love me?" and you hem and haw, and then say something about "true love isn't about saying you love someone."
Don't try this at home unless you've got a comfortable couch, and/or a good divorce lawyer on speed-dial.
Occam's Beard: For example, what exactly did [Obama] do as a "community organizer?"
Ah! I can help you. About a third of Byron York's National Review story, "The Organizer", is available online.
I found the cover tasteless and disgusting. I am voting for McCain, but Obama's family should not be subjected to such calumny.
I suspect the passion evoked by the Obama cover far overestimates the readership (and influence) of The New Yorker.
Yeah Meagan, just like no one should have been outraged about the truth Wesley Clark said. You and Mark Ambinder should go share a turd sandwhich together.
The point isn't that the cover is offensive.
It's that it's dumb. Dumb, dumb, stupid, and dumb.
There are a hundred perfectly good, smart ways to satirize the right's hysterical fantasies about the Obamas.
This is the one-hundred-and-first: out all possible approaches, the most ambiguous, the least effective, the dumbest.
It's a "fart in your general direction" in a situation that requires well-aimed sniper fire.
Or: it's a soccer player scoring on his own team. In his home stadium.
It is, in short, a perfect symbol of Democratic message incompetence lo these many years.
Compact-fluorescent light bulbs CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS!!!
Read:
Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break--The Boston Globe.
...Even cleaning up the dust from a broken bulb is very dangerous...
Here consider how the Wall Street Journal reported that carbon monoxide, particulate, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been greatly reduced here in the US--since 1970; "All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near tripling of the number of miles driven..."
Yet, another WSJ article explains how: "A significant portion of China's air pollution can be traced to the production of goods that are exported. In the city of Shenshen, a major industrial base in southern China, about 89% of emissions of sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant that causes acid rain, are released in the process of export manufacturing ... The study also found 71% of particulate matter, the small particles that cause smog and respiratory problems, can be traced to the manufacturing of exported goods." --China shifts pollution fight, 11/01/07.
Furthermore, "If you have emission constraints, it's become very attractive to relocate dirty production to developing countries ... You import the finished goods, and leave the pollution in China"--Why China Could Blame Its CO2 on West, WSJ, 11/12/07.
In fact, "Mercury and other pollutants from China's more than 2,000 coal-fired power plants soar high into the atmosphere and around the globe ... The US Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that a third of the country's (USA) lakes and nearly a quarter of its rivers are now so polluted with mercury that children and women are advised to limit or avoid eating fish caught there ... Some scientists now say 30% or more of the mercury settling into US ground soil and waterways comes from other countries--in particular, China ..."--Invisible Export--A Hidden Cost of China's Growth: Mercury Migration, WSJ, 12/20/04.
Note: Greenpeace and The Sierra Club have links to inexpensive mercury testing kits...
Naturally, Obama and McCain are huge advocates of COAL!!!
Good reads:
Nader opposes nuclear, coal, oil energy, supports wind, solar--Crosswalk website,
The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal--BusinessWeek, 06/19/08,
Real Solutions for Reducing Carbon Emissions--Rain Forest Network,
King Coal's Latest Con Job, Clean Coal is Not Clean--CounterPunch, 01/23/07.
Note: The Collossal MagLev Wind Turbine = $.01 per kilowatt hour (its low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore wind farms = unlimited potential).
Hemp is an environmentally safe source for ethanol, which could easily replace oil and coal in power plants, yet, though 100% ethanol burns pure, when it's mixed with gasoline (E85) for cars, this actually causes more pollution.
Read:
Ethanol vehicles pose significant risk to health, new study finds--Stanford Study, Stanford News Service, 04/18/07.
Furthermore, where "...Toyota Chief Executive Katsuaki Watanabe confirmed to BusinessWeek that the company would put high-capacity lithium-ion batteris in the third-generation Prius, due toward the end of 2008 or early 2009," one shouldn't hold his/her breath...
Consider how public perception of the lithium-ion batteries was smeared by a massive recall by Sony--because of contamination caused by an inferior manufacturing process!!! ...Part of the conspiracy to murder the electricc car...!!!!
Note: The Tesla Roadster already used lithium-ion batteries.
According to Wikipedia, Electric Vehicles--the lithium-ion battery takes minutes instead of hours to recharge and a charge goes as far as a tank of gas...
...How difficult to make a battery pack that can be changed at a service station, or a small emergency pack a tow-truck could provide...???
Finally, consider how George W. Bush never actually won a Presidential Election: See The United States Commission on Civil Rights Report on the Irregularities of the 2000 Florida Presidential Election, and the Rolling Stone Magazine article Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Then complain to the UN about our corrupt election process: 1503@ohchr.org
My point being: Public perception doesn't play a big part in this election--what's important is who "controls" the easily defeated electronic voting machines...
Does anyone else think this whole controversy might be more about distracting public attention from the 15-page Ryan Lizza profile detailing Obama's Chicago politics and less about actual offense? I'm surprised nobody's picked up on it.
In fact, the kookier depths of my brain (you know, the same ones that think Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist fist jabber with a portrait of Osama Bin Laden over his fireplace) are inclined to believe that the New Yorker may have been lobbing a softball with an obviously outrageous cover. For the rest of the week, or at least until the media moves on to the next dumb controversy, "Obama" and "New Yorker" will be connected in the public mind with a stupid cartoon rather than a detailed, somewhat unflattering article.
"It is, in short, a perfect symbol of Democratic message incompetence lo these many years."
What do you mean, lampwick? How on earth is The New Yorker part of the "Democratic message incompetence"? There's no "Democratic message" here: it's a magazine.
I know you're not going to say something along the lines of "The New Yorker is liberal and working to elect Obama and Dems," or some variation of that. Because that would be pretty idiotic. So what did you mean?
So there is an Osama picure on the wall of the Oval Office and Coates and Tapper can't see the satire? For serious? Now THAT may be beyond parody. I think the cartoonist tweaked Michelle Obama's looks ever so slightly to resemble Laureen Hobbs. But Hobbs herself was a 70's black radical character in a satirical film, so it works there too and explains the superfly afro, which, let's be honest -- sniffly PC phobias aside -- looks totally awesome and is only meant to reinforce the PARODY.
Hi Woody - I take it you're not familiar with The New Yorker?
Cause it's pretty freakin' obviously a liberal and progressive publication. Always has been. Sure, it has lots and lots of neutral, nonpolitical material. But whenever it touches on politics in its reporting, or whenever there's some big social issue, it pretty consistently comes down on the progressive, tolerant, cosmopolitan side. So I'd call it liberal, in the same sense that the NYTimes is liberal.
I don't think I'm alone here.
In fact, it's the premise of virtually every single one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of blogosphere comments on the cartoon that the The New Yorker IS A LIBERAL MAGAZINE! THAT'S WHAT WAS SO CRAZY ABOUT IT!
Isn't Obama the guy who is supposed to bring us all together into Utopian harmony? But if a bit of satire has this kind of effect, I do not see much harmony on the way.
Obama did dress up in traditional Kenyan garb. Therefore, according to the standard that Bush was ridiculed for things he did, I guess its fair game to draw him that way. No?
The flag in the fireplace? Ayers as an associate, photographed standing on an American flag. The pin incidents.
Fist bump? Actually occurred in real life.
Osama / Obama - that's been mixed up and uttered by Democrat in the Senate.
Michelle in Afro with AK-47...don't know what she has done to deserve that, but I'm sure we can come up with some stuff.
The key here is that since Obama is a Democrat and an african-american it is not appropriate to make fun of anything about him. If you do so the subtext will be that you are a racist.
Oh, and its all racist republicans who do this stuff, not Hillary supporters or the New Yorker, etc. That will be the meme.
Occam,
I see what you mean, but I think the analogy I, myself, would make is: a wife/girlfriend's mother-in-law putting an "I
Aaron: Michelle in Afro with AK-47...don't know what she has done to deserve that, but I'm sure we can come up with some stuff.
The 'fro: Michelle had that college thesis which was something or other about Black Power.
The gun: Barak recently came out of the closet as a "lifelong" supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
This is the searing part of the blogosphere. The quasi-famous people write posts saying "Haha, I cherish a good satire! Surely all thinking people understand the irony here! Surely the right wing loons know they are hoist on their own petard! Tra lah!" And then the right wing loons prove them wrong in their own damn comment threads.
I propose David Remnick and Megan McArdle have a long lunch with Aaron and Occam's Beard and see if they feel so sanguine about the sophistication of the electorate.
From CNN today:
Tra lah!
southpaw,
Re-read my post. I never said the cartoon was funny. I was responding to the claim that all of the Chimpy McHitler stuff was based on "things Bush did" while the Obama drawing was not.
But seriously, after 8 years of Chimpy McHitler, you'd think the Dems could deal with even poor attempts at humor from their own side. I guess not. Sigh. Its going to be a boring 4 years of SNL.
Aaron, it's a flawed comparison. All the "Chimpy McHitler stuff" did not originate on the right and was not meant as a satire to lampoon the left; it was the left itself venting its inchoate rage at George W. Bush. (If the National Review had put on its cover an image of W with a Hitler moustache and a monkey's tail standing in the rose garden directing the waterboarding of a high-school science teacher, I imagine conservatives would be having the same conversation about satire and propriety that liberals are having now.)
What you did say in your post, unless I'm wildly misreading you, is that each and every depiction of the Obamas in the New Yorker image is arguably legitimate. Whether you're right or wrong, that reaction is 180 degrees opposed to what the sophisticates at the New Yorker intended you to take from the image. They thought they were holding up a mirror to the absurdity of all these lies; you think they were underlining the truth. That's why they screwed up.
Caution! Exposure to this quip may be hazardous to your heart. Consult physician before ingesting this or any other blood pressure aggravation. Not for infernal application. This product contains light hearted merriment known to the State of California to cause cancer. Professional pundit on a high horse; do not attempt. Your mileage may vary with real-world dialect conditions. Side effects may include disillusionment, irrational sensitivity, and multiple deadly sins. May contain wingnuts. To avoid turning into stone, avoid exposure to direct sunlight. Keep away from child-bearing. All traded remarks are the property of their respective owners. Disconnect argument from Internet before servicing.
Occam,
If you knew anything, you would know that to be a successful liberal politician in Illinois, you have to be on friendly terms with Bill Ayers. You would also know that the Ayers quote about how he 'regrets nothing' was taken out of context, and in context the quote does not refer to Ayers bombings, which Ayers has repeatedly expressed sorrow and regret for. To continue this counterfactual, if you knew anything you would know that McCain said that he didn't love america until he came back from vietnam.
"I'm pretty sure the right wing hasn't taken its marching orders from The New Yorker for at least twenty years."
Which would imply the right wing once took its marching orders from Elizabeth Drew. Which is pretty funny, really.
But, you don't understand! This was sacrilege!
"They thought they were holding up a mirror to the absurdity of all these lies; you think they were underlining the truth."
Thanks for underestimating my intelligence. Yes, yes, I get that its actually designed to make light of the supposedly right wing smears of Obama, and, my gosh, it might not work that way. OMG, what if it reinforces them!
My suggestion is that maybe Obama supporters could now empathize with Bush being called Hitler, or a chimp, or AWOL, or what not, based on equally dubious grounds.
p.s. my mentioning that Obama did try on some "Muslim" clothes is not the same thing as your claim that I think that its true he's a Muslim. same with the flag pin/ayers, etc. Please don't jump to conclusions about what I think is true about Obama. For the record, I know that Obama is not Muslim. In fact he attends a Christian church with an eccentric and fiery minister. Or used to, I guess.
And after re-reading my post, I think it was clear enough in the first place.
All the more reason not to be a liberal politician.
And one thing I do know is a treasonous communist terrorist who should have ended days with a rope around his neck, and God willing, may yet.
Rickm, unlike liberals, I don’t say this lightly, but you’re a liar.
From that right wing noise machine, the New York Times:
[…]I guess this doesn’t refer to Ayers’ bombings either, right?
[…] […]So, that would be a "yes."
Weasel out of this one. What shall it be: taken out of context, misquoted, not the Bill Ayers I knew, he was framed, what?
(Btw, note the publication date of this interview: 9/11/2001.)
Occam-
After September 11, Ayers wrote a letter to the New York Times describing what he said to the reporter who interviewed him: "I never said I had any love for explosives...I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.
"I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact, we didn't do enough to stop the war."
"Some readers apparently responded to her piece, published on the same day as the vicious terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, by associating my book with them. This is absurd. My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it. We are now witnessing crimes against humanity in our own land on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we might soon see innocent people in other parts of the world as well as in the U.S. dying and suffering in response."
Ayers' remarks were printed in the NY Times as a discussion about his memoir, not as a reaction to September 11th. Also, the Weathermen's policy was to bomb buildings ONLY AFTER they closed and when all personnel were outside of the building. Contrast this to the US Government who were murdering tens of thousands of Vietnamese via bombings (including John McCain) and then ask who really was the terrorist.
OK, so no love for explosives. Who cares? The central issue is this: did he, or did he not, say
That’s all I want to know. Does he regret setting bombs? Check one:
A. Yes
B. No.
The quote seems pretty clear to me.
I don’t see any denial of that, and that was the point. Nobody said anything about his affection for explosives, or tied his treasonous behavior and book to 9/11. His bringing up such things is a straight-up straw man.
Similarly, he degenerates into a lametuo quoque defense, mumbling about Hiroshima and the killing fields of Southeast Asia (Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge were people of his political persuasion – and possibly yours – doing that), as if that excuses his behavior.
This is rich, coming from the rich boy who had women (IIRC) sneaking around and leaving bombs. Not exactly Sands of Iwo Jima, is it?
This is also rich, given that again IIRC, several of his comrades fell victim to the “culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness” when they tried to assemble a bomb in Greenwich Village.
I hadn’t appreciated their fun-loving high-spirited pranks. Is bombing now the highest form of patriotism? Is it OK if someone blows up the site of the Democratic Convention, you know, after hours? How about Greenpeace headquarters?
Easy: a-hole Ayers. No question about it. Killing people in the course of a war is not murder. Think about it: your beloved North Vietnamese killed people left, right, front, and center (some in war, some not, but let that pass). So by your reckoning, they were terrorists too, and so deserved to be killed. Or is it only Americans who can be terrorists?
If you are not clear on who was (and is) the terrorist, and who was not, then you don’t just need your moral compass readjusted – you need one installed first.
Am I the only one who thinks that this cover illustration controversy is being deliberately hyped in order to draw attention away from the contents of the article inside, which is unfavorable to Obama?
Someone quoted in the NYT as saying they don't regret the bombs, later recants this after 9/11. Hmmmmmm, I wonder if that someone maybe they decided guerilla chic would be out of favor for a while and it would be best to back off the no regrets on bombs line. Ya think?
matthew,
You're not. I mentioned the same thing up higher in the thread, but everyone else seems to be distracted.