Please, Not In My Backyard
We were saving Ann Leary, the “Backyard Conservative,” for a New Wingut of the Week award,* but her post on the current cover of the New Yorker is too good to pass up:
New Yorker Trashes Obamas
The New Yorker outdoes itself on the sophisticated satire–which is total trash.
Huh? If anyone can figure out what on earth that sentence means when translated into English, please share your thoughts with us in the comments.
I’ll let you view the controversial cover at The Politico. Huffpo reaction here.
And the New Yorker tries to blame it all on us righties.
Which is, of course, completely unfair because no one on the right has suggested the Obama is a Muslim or that Michelle made a terrorist fist jab
This kind of gross stereotypic thinking seems to be a pattern on the left.
But, of course, saying that something is a “pattern on the left” isn’t a stereotype. That is because each conservative has a unique individual voice that springs from the depths of his or her finely-tuned conscience, whereas all liberals are merely automatons parroting the ideas implanted in their brains by the evil liberal press, which, in turn, simply says what George Soros wants it to say.
I do kinda like Michelle’s combat boots though.
You knew this was going to happen, didn’t you? A few crocodile tears and some poutrage from Ann over the idea that wingnuts would ever suggest that Michelle was a terrorist and then, next thing you know, out plops from her mouth what she swore up and down she’d never say. After that, Ann giggles, burps, and blames that little outburst on that second tot of gin she had right after her husband left for work.
*According to the rules of the New Wingnut of the Week award — which have been established by, and are being administered impartially by, Sadly, No!’s New York law firm — no one is eligible for the NWOTW award if they have been mentioned at Sadly, No! prior to the bestowal of the NWOTW award.
Jebus there’s a lot of stupid out there today.
It’s quite amazing how much stuff just goes right over the heads of wingnuts. Yep, liberals are really into those stereotypes and all… Sure.
The Iraq war is really our fault, too, you know.
The comments at the Politico are priceless. Check out these two, positioned one after the other:
I don’t get it.
Hmmm. Backyard. Porky Ann. Pig roast. MMMMM good.
At the risk of going to the Howling Wolf well one too many times…
I am a backyard conservative
I am a backyard conservative
Well, the men don’t know,
but the little squirrels understand
The Iraq war is really our fault, too, you know.
Plus, we’re the real racists.
Poe was far too generous.
Please do not post any more pictures of this fellow ….
Say what?
Stupid fingers are dyslexic. That should be:
“Pope was far too generous.”
Holy ….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28Keeping_Up_Appearances%29
It’s uncanny.
Good, it’s already confusing stupid people. Satire accomplished.
At the risk of going to the Howling Wolf well one too many times…
You can never go to the Howlin’ Wolf well enough.
To complete the satire, they should have replaced the text “New Yorker” with “Weekly Standard”.
Her Tony Snow memorial:
Geez, I know I shouldn’t be pointing the “bad grammar-no cookie” finger, but this is K-Lo-tastic.
From her bio: My family has a tradition of journalism, and I’ve been avoiding it all my life.
Artfully implying that she is not, in fact, and as can be seen from even the most casual perusal of her writings, continuing to avoid journalism.
That’s not journalism, that’s typing.
Clif, since you asked, here’s a breakdown…
She believes that The New Yorker is a publication based on filth and meanness and other very bad things. So when it does something like this, she believes the time is right to insert a “outdoes itself.” Our equivalent would be “When Pastor Swank writes a column consisting of no recognizable words, he’s really outdone itself.”
She also believes that the satirical cover is “sophsticated.” I don’t, but seeing how many people either don’t get it or are whining about it, who knows. Also, she believes it’s “total trash” because, well, waah waah.
Her sentence should probably read like this:
The New Yorker has really outdone itself with the sophisticated satire displayed on its latest cover. Too bad the satire is absolute rubbish.
Er, outdone himself. Though, itself works fine enough.
Clif, since you asked, here’s a breakdown…
Option 2: She’s really impressed by the cover, and is using “trash” ironically in that self-aware hipster style. IOW:
Now before you shoot this translation down (since it’s obviously wrong) consider the image that she thought was more apropos.
It’s a shame that during the 25 years she spent biting her tongue in polite society she couldnt be bothered to do what she’s doing now. Biting harder.
Just read the full post.
My brain hurts.
Horton , hearing a what !
Saw a play , cynically referred to as satire .
The critics were to lazy to stop day dreaming
Pick up the cudgels of literary love the muses cried !
Cried and cried …
Poe discussing verities with a raven
Lost a bet with Pope
Patience being a virtue
Went ten rounds in a losing effort
Against the Moirae
Who in a bow to recent cultural mores
Worked the shoe shine booths
Where sohpisticates who didn’t tip
brought about bubbly giggly chortles
which woke the critics who reflexively
murmured trash as they brushed teeth
brushed and brushed
Ann needs to find her Paul Sheldon so she can break his ankles.
WE aren’t the ones who said that Barack Obama is a Muslim, it was the New Yorker!
P.S. He really is a Muslim.
Let me take a whack at it.
In (stereo)typical freichtard typing (see above), she has many feverish little notions buzzing around in her vacuous skull and tries to type tham all out at once. It makes perfect sense to her and she assumes that others understand because she assumes others have the same feverish little notions flying around inside their own cranial vacuities.
The only way for a reality based person to understand it is to guess. Here’s mine: She thinks the New Yorker’s metier is sophistimicated satire. Chance of here ever having read anything published in the New Yorker is vanishingly small. Well, there’s the possible exception that she has seen a few clipped cartoons but she surely didn’t understand them, And now she thinks the current cover is ultra-mega-waygood-sophistimicationish satire.
The appended “total trash” might mean “they totally trashed the Obamas.” Or it could be completely unrelated. She switched to a new feverish little notion which could have been about anything. Or nothing.
One can’t reasonably expect these people to hold a single thought in their heads for the entire duration of a sentence. No, that wouldn’t be reasonable at all.
Thanks for that, DrDick. By way of further explanation, please excuse me while I link myself.
Backyard Conservative gets her moral compass and media analysis from her namesake: the backyard. Squirrels whisper into her ear.
I don’t think squirrels whisper into her ear. Squirrels, at least the ones in my yard, are too smart. My guess is it’s slugs.
The Bush administration strikes again:
This is UNBELIEVABLE. CEOs and shareholders that profited from the subprime scam now get billions in support?
I love her “Days since Barack Obama has visited Iraq” counter.
How ever will she decorate her blog after Sen. Obama makes his trip? Can we get a “Days since Ann Leary has visited Iraq” counter, I wonder?
This kind of gross stereotypic thinking seems to be a pattern on the left.
Just like the constant drug-laced, patchouli-scented, welfare-funded “War on Xtianity” gaybortion orgies!
How about “Days since McCain figured out the difference between Sunni and Shiite”?
It would always be at 0.
Lesley
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be nationalized immediately and the illegal fines forgiven. The CEOs can suck on air, just like WordPress can.
The New Yorker outdoes itself on the sophisticated satire–which is total trash.
It seems Ms. Leary is of the opinion that “sophisticated satire” done up New York Jew-rag style is trash, especially when everybody’s hyperventilating about it but she’s not sure exactly why, but she’s pretty sure it’s ridiculing her somehow, but again she’s not sure about that either cuz she’s a dumbshit.
Wow, talk about your “D List” blogger, she’s sad. I bet Sadly, No just quadrupled her hit count for the past year.
She’s so awful, even Mallard Fillmore shies away from lifting her talking points.
Thomas Sowell himself could probably beat her on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”
(I know. That’s just mean. But to whom am I being mean?)
For a translation, I must consult my teecher, “Randal.”
I bet she’s not a BackDoor Conservative….heh.
Political Cliche #1,825: Our side is a free-thinking group of individuals, the other side is the Borg.
[E]ach conservative has a unique individual voice that springs from the depths of his or her finely-tuned conscience
I don’t.
RE: Ann’s picture, MST3K says:
“I’m HUGE !!!!”
Who would have guessed Kathy Bates hates The New Yorker so much?
Why is there a picture of a blancmange … never mind.
Why is there a picture of a blancmange … never mind.
There’s only one explanation! They mean to win Wimbledon!
Someone tell this woman that “journalism” and “keeping a journal” are too entirely different activities.
Damn, two.
The stoopid r kuntajus.
I thought you meant “back door conservative.” Thank the gods I don’t worship, ’cause there isn’t enough viagra and psylocin in the looneyverse for me to make that woman my mud-honey.
Nossir.
.
which is saying a lot, ’cause that lawn-jockey couldn’t beat a dung beetle at cribbage even with two ganglia tied behind its chitonous exo-skeleton.
.
Maybe she was saying that satire is what closes on Saturday night.
Or maybe she’s just an idiot.
C’mon now, the backyard is clearly where she belongs. Tied up with the other baying dogs.
I, for one, find it entirely fitting that the “Democrat” Party (assuming, of course, that it is “on the left”) is a possible source of “stereotypic” thinking. Apparently, English has too many syllables for wingnuts.
As for the cartoon… where’s the kitty?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/obamas-cover-flap/#comment-89985
That woman’s pic is screaming “I own twelve cats, I’m the Crazy Aunt, and my drapes are as long as the curtains”….
Don’t forget the plastic coated furniture.
OT, I had no idea the Doughy Pantload was branching out into movie reviews. There’s a nice takedown of the NRO’s and other’s complaints about WALL-E at the AV Club.
In order to bring some topicality to this comment, I commented at her site
Interestingly enough, I appear to be the
firstsecond commenter EVAH at the backyard boozhag blog.If you stare at her photo for more than a few seconds you can actually smell the gin.
Photography tip of the day: It’s not nearly as cool as you think when you hold your shitty digicam out at arm’s length and shoot an image of yourself. This goes double if you’re already a moon-faced sack of crap. If amongst the people you pay to be your friends there is not a single one of them who will snap a nice headshot for your blather on the web, then skip the picture altogether.
To put it in simpler terms:
wide-angle lens+close to face+big face=really, fucking big face
At first I thought she was calling herself the “backward conservative.” “Aren’t they all?” I thought. Then I realized it was backyard, and I asked myself, “Why backyard? Does she hail any neighbor unwary enough to enter his backyard and force him to listen to an hour’s worth of over-the-fence wingnut rants? I’ll bet that’s it!” I doubt any of her neighbors has stepped out the back door or pulled all the way up the driveway in years.
Another speculation: Could this be Cassy’s mom?
SomeNYGuy, that literally made me laugh out loud. You too, ice weasel.
You know how they say people look like their pets? Imagine a cat or dog walking around with that mug.
Is that her backyard behind her or is that the “green space” between the interstate and the gravel pit?
More quality commentary from Anne Leary:
But then liberals are notoriously intolerant of their neighbors…
I remember when we liberated Iraq… Much has changed for the better since then.
Uhhhh….
Wow! Y’all are mean today! Is it simply TOO MUCH to ask if we could try criticizing Ms. Leary based on her — uh — not focus on her physical appear… er — hell, fuck it. She’s hideous.
I blame Bill Clinton’s penis.
Stop picking on The Backward Pundit.
Scuse me, I meant to say “Backward Conservative.”
Annie has responded:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/07/silly-sadly-no.html
To be fair maybe the next cover should be McCain as the Manchurian Candidate.
I love these elections. They bring out how close minded both sides are…
They bring out how close minded both sides are…
Sure. One side says one and one is zero, the other says it’s two. Why can’t we all sensibly agree one + one = one?
Anne Leary, referring to commenters at Sadly, No:
Yes, but the computer chip Obama’s minions implanted in my brain leaves me no choice.
There. Obviously she thinks sophisticated satire is total trash.
And maybe I read, I watched, I thought, and I reached a conclusion.
And maybe this conclusion has nothing to do with a secret plan to blow up my own country, to allow it’s government to be overthrown, or, in spite of my oft-stated somewhat militant atheism, to allow Islamic clerics to take over my country and administer a system of Shari’a justice, but rather my sincere belief that perhaps the path the bush/cheney administration has us on is unsustainable and destructive to america’s wealth, stature and values and I’d like to see us follow a different path.
No?
Pretty much not possible?
Oh. Never mind then….
mikey
Backtard annie burped up, “Protesting too much by far. You’re all such victims.”
To quote our esteemed hosts here “Sadly, No!”
Roger said,
July 15, 2008 at 2:19
To be fair maybe the next cover should be McCain as the Manchurian Candidate.
Noooooooooooooooo.
Don’t let
Reverend Henry KaneJohn McSame in!all the snotty remarks about her looks and her response is that we protest too much about her comments about Obama?? OK, she’s not the sharpest wit, is she…
And who’s smearing whom?
Well, I don’t know – let’s go to the tape:
Obama smears on McCain – can’t think of one, but I’m sure gin soaked Anne’ll come up with one.
McCain smears on Obama – Hamas candidate.
So I’ll have to go with the GOP guy, barring new evidence.
Oh wait, you’re talking about campaign staff and surrogates, after all you linked a story about where Wesley Clark answered a direct question honestly and correctly. But what of the question about Obama’s Muslimosity – answer here. Or flag-pin-gate or certificate-of-live-birth-gate or Larry-Johnson-is-full-of-shit-gate?
But let’s talk about McCain’s time in a POW camp. That prepares to be Commander-in-Chief how? Because he’s going to piss off so much of the world, he may well end uo being captured again? Anyways, kinda funny how McCain’s point-man to defend himself from these “swift-boat” attacks is none other than Swift Boat Veteran for Lying About John Kerry Bud Day himself.
So who is smearing whom?
At the risk of repeating myself, barring new evidence, I’ll have to go with the GOP guy.
hey, when did one of the Sutter brothers get an NRO column?
Shoulda seen an orthodontist.
To be fair, I don’t think wingnuts actually believe that crap about Obama being a Muslim and so on. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be pissed off about the cover (which I think is actually humorous as satire). The problem is that stupid voters actually believe that crap, and when stupid voters see the cover, they’ll be reinforced in their crappy beliefs. Stupid voters are whom we’re trying to win over. Many stupid voters will vote for Obama because they’re black or for McCain because they teach their children creationism because it’s easier to understand than evolution. Stupid voters are the ones who have prejudices and who base their choices on something the media tells them without really making the effort to determine which candidate is better. They’re the ones who vote for the guy they’d rather have a beer with, who think that an intelligent candidate isn’t like them and therefore shouldn’t be president, etc. I think we’re lucky in this election that our candidate does not repel the black stupid voters like he probably repels the other stupid voters, who would generally be repelled by the Democrat regardless by the idiotic Republican talking points. So as far as stupid voters are concerned, we’ve got enough of them voting for us that we should be OK when the nonstupid voters come in. Stupid people is definitely, I think, the swing demographic.
Of course, by pointing out that some stupid people are black I am in no way possibly implying that this holds true for all stupid people or all black people or anything of the sort. I’m just talking about the intersection of the two sets. Call me an elitist — I am an elitist — and it’s probably un-PC to say this, but the low-information voter is I think the biggest obstacle to a working democracy, and this was recognized by the Founders, who implemented the Electoral College to ensure that such low-information voters wouldn’t get to be the deciders, since they’ll probably decide for the wrong reasons. And yet, they hold the balance of our political system, and I think they hold it mostly to the right, so if we can convince liberals to vote more often and convince these low-information voters to do what we tell them instead of what they tell them, we’ll be in business.
And say what you will about Obama’s merits, these low-information voters don’t really know anything about them. Since usually these low-information voters are biased toward the Republican (since the Republicans say dumb things that make them seem “tough”, etc.), we’re a leg up now that some of those low-information voters can play identity politics. To say that this entire election is about identity politics would be entirely incorrect, of course, but I do think that the battle for the low-information voters depends on it, which is why the nonstupid Republicans really would like to push the Muslim and anti-Patriot rumors at them. Any informed voter can see past it easily.
Want to see the difference between Left and Right and just who depends on lies and hate? Check SNOPES. Look at the spam emails about Obama and McCain and compare. There are as of today (14 July) 24 emails listed on Snopes about Obama and his wife. 22 of the 24 are critical. Of those 22 critical just 1 (one) is true (although it lacks context). Five (5) are a mixture of true and false. Two (2) are marked as “undetermined.” The remaining fifteen are LIES. (one positive email is true).
Then look at the McCains. There are just 4 emails listed. Only 1 is critical, and it is marked as “undetermined.” The other 3 are true (although they sometimes only tell half of the story).
So out of 22 emails with verifiable claims about the Obamas, 20 are either partially or completely untrue.
If you didn’t know anything else about the two political parties in this country this alone should tell you which group depends on lies, smears, and hate. Even a Backyard Conservative should be able to figure that out…
Iron-clad Rule of the Internets: The people who need to read Snopes never do.
Gosh, thanks, Clif – you just made me feel a LOT less depressed about being celibate for so long – yow!
BULLSEYE! We have a winnah! Get the little lady a Kewpie-Doll!
Some of these folks really do look like they think, don’t they?
[…] an absolutely literal and accurate accurate depiction of the secret life of the Obamas , see here, here, and […]