Shorter Confederate Yankee

About that New Yorker cover

  • A lot of people are saying that the controversial New Yorker cover is meant to satirize people like me — when really it’s a blisteringly accurate depiction of commie Muslim-lover Hussein Obama X.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™


Gavin adds: A lot of people are saying that our various depictions of Confederate Yankee standing in front of Wacky Packages, emitting yar-har sounds, at the wheel of souped-up charcoal grills, and staring aghast at improbable, comedic photo manipulations, are meant to satirize people like us.

When really, etc.

 

Comments: 86

 
 
 

Now, that’s not fair. TIDOS Yankee may be the stupidest person on the planet. He spells out his idiocy in his handle, for cryin’ out loud, so of course any form of satire more complicated than what “Hee Haw” could pull off – and I say this as a huge “Hee Haw” fan – will be beyond him. And his grill.

 
 

Mishin Uhkomplished.

 
 

but then, much of the content of the New Yorker falls into that category if you live outside the neo-Copernican worldview of a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe. Those of us outside of that self-involved hemorrhage of land between the Hudson and East Rivers are simply part of a bitter and clingy “not us” to the magazine’s erudite familiars.

Please, please, please remember this the next time terrorists hit New York — remember, while we find such attacks part of the “rest of the world” idiocy, we hate you too, Gomer.*

Also: What the fuck is a “self-involved hemorrhage”?

Finally: There’s a reason it’s called “The NEW YORKER” and not “The Podunk Gumball”, it’s not meant for illiterate hillbillies who live in a state of constant self-imposed fear of the rest of the planet.

* Don’t live in NYC now, but was there when the shit went down. Oddly most of us didn’t want to bomb Iraq for it either.

 
 

For god’s sake don’t let him read “A Modest Proposal.”

 
 

I’m beginning to suspect that this Gomer fellow might be a bit of a thicky. Oh! And he has a link to a Malkin post enticing titled “grow a pair.” No fucking way am I clicking on that, but I hope to read your take down soon.

 
 

Those of us outside of that self-involved hemorrhage of land between the Hudson and East Rivers are simply part of a bitter and clingy “not us” to the magazine’s erudite familiars.

Boy, there seems to be something he’s suggesting here but I can’t quite put my fingerJEWS JEWS J-J-J-J-JOOOOOOOZZZ oh, sorry! I don’t know what that was about! Just some indigestion, I suspect!

 
 

Also: What the fuck is a “self-involved hemorrhage”?

In this case, an unintentionally accurate self-description.

 
 

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.

 
 

Note too that when a crabbed gun-stroking shut-in whines about Manhattan, he’s representin’ the “heartland”, but when an urbane type wants to make fun of him its “elitism”.

It’d be nice, in circumstances like this, for the perpetually aggrieved and thin-skinned Southerners who think of themselves as liberals and cry about how hateful the coastal elite can be — to actually fight against losers like this who give you the bad name, and not those who, fed up with the eternally aggressive anti-intellectualism of the knee-jerk psuedo-populist South, rag on them for fitting every stereotype of dirt-dumb hick ever put to print.

 
 

a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe

I know, damn that New Yorker for publishing views reflective of those found in (of all places) NEW YORK! You know, I’ve also noticed that the Salt Lake Tribune sure seems to think highly of this “Salt Lake City” place! I mean, it’s full of like, local news about the town, and the Utah Jazz, like anyone gives a crap, right? It’s so myopic and narrow-minded, I can’t believe it!

 
 

Actually, Texas liberals that I know don’t knock the coasts or elites. When you’re surrounded by idiots you cling to the belief that there’s a place where you’d fit in and find like-minded people. It’s all we have sometimes.

 
 

From CY’s post:

“It is perhaps this great unknowing of life to the left of the West Side Highway that causes…”

Someone’s been auditing Pastor Swank’s course on Introducings to the More Effective Eloquence in Writing and the Like.

 
 

This is why I wanted Guliani to be the nominee–I wanted to see the heads explode in Gooberville and Mount Pilot when the GOP standard-bearer was from New York.

 
 

I think I saw something like this at “Greetings from Stupidland.”

 
 

Oh! And he has a link to a Malkin post enticing[ly] titled “grow a pair.”

So, he’s making fun of Malkin’s flat-chestedness? Shame on him!

 
 

Shorter Wankee:

Obama has a Muslim Problem because I say he’s a Muslim and a Problem. Score infinity for meeee!

No one who thinks that a mainstream American politician is a Marxist is worthy of being taken seriously. No one.

 
 

Actually, Texas liberals that I know don’t knock the coasts or elites.

Of course not everyone does this (plus, as a UT grad who knew the crew at the Texas Observer, I know what you say is the truth — Texas liberals are the funniest, toughest folk in the country), but you know that others don’t see it this way.

See any discussion of “fuckthesouth.com” on any liberal site and enjoy the defensiveness!

 
 

michellemalkin.com’s take on this is predictable: “If Obama complains about this, it means he’s a girly man. Besides, this pales in comparison with what we on the right have suffered.”

 
 

“It is tasteless and offensive, but then, much of the content of the New Yorker falls into that category “

Not the Haruki Murakami short stories, surely? *skips*

 
 

It’d be nice, in circumstances like this, for the perpetually aggrieved and thin-skinned Southerners who think of themselves as liberals and cry about how hateful the coastal elite can be — to actually fight against losers like this who give you the bad name, and not those who, fed up with the eternally aggressive anti-intellectualism of the knee-jerk psuedo-populist South, rag on them for fitting every stereotype of dirt-dumb hick ever put to print.

Ya know, that’s pretty much the same argument I’ve used for self-described liberal Christians who’re constantly whining about something P.Z. Myers or Amanda Marcotte said (or, in a nutshell, Amy Sullivan). I don’t use it anymore because I can’t come up with a way, for example, to make people like TDIOS Yankee listen when they’re starting from a false premise in the first place. They’re not gonna listen until they come into the light under they’re own power – such as realizing how horrible and rediculous it is to call yourself “Confederate” anything and expect to be taken as anything but a racist dipstick. But until then, I don’t know what to do with them except mock them.

As I said in an earlier post, I think there’s a lot of people in this country who’ve never formed any sort of close relationship with a person who isn’t their religion/ethnicity/from the same town, but there’s something more to it. My mother coached girls’ basketball in a town that was almost 50-50 white-black in rural Mississippi, so I like to think my own ease with African-American is something that’s been with me from the get-go.

Still, as a young man looking for a place to belong, I flew a Confederate Flag with the idea that it wasn’t a symbol of racism but of the whole South. I did that until my 16th year when a very close friend, a black guy a year older than me I’d known all my life, told me how full of shit I really was. “Read your history and look around you,” he told me. “Is that really what you want to celebrate? Is that really what you want to be?” In short, you have to want to not be a total asshole, and some folks aren’t ready to make that decision.

I’m open for suggestions on what to do with ’em – stumpjumper to cracker, in this case – until they come around, though.

 
 

There’s a reason it’s called “The NEW YORKER” and not “The Podunk Gumball”, it’s not meant for illiterate hillbillies who live in a state of constant self-imposed fear of the rest of the planet.

Hooray, Jay B. nails it!

 
 

I’m surprised that he seems to realize that he’s being made fun of. A scintilla of self-awareness?

 
 

Besides, the REAL center of the universe is here in DC, inside the Beltway (blessed be its inner and outer loops)

 
 

It is tasteless and offensive, but then, much of the content of the New Yorker falls into that category if you live outside the neo-Copernican worldview of a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe. Those of us outside of that self-involved hemorrhage of land between the Hudson and East Rivers are simply part of a bitter and clingy “not us” to the magazine’s erudite familiars.

I’m going to put the over/under on issues of The New Yorker Mr. Yankee has read through at 1.

 
 

I don’t use it anymore because I can’t come up with a way, for example, to make people like TDIOS Yankee listen when they’re starting from a false premise in the first place.

Well, you could always take the “Jews for Jesus” route and go all “Southerners Against the Confederacy” on them.

Do a little JewJitsu on dem cracker assholes.

And I also support you revving up the whole “liberal Christian should deal with the people who really give them the bad name” fight. I support that wholeheartedly.

 
 

Ya know, that’s pretty much the same argument I’ve used for self-described liberal Christians who’re constantly whining about something P.Z. Myers or Amanda Marcotte said (or, in a nutshell, Amy Sullivan). I don’t use it anymore because I can’t come up with a way, for example, to make people like TDIOS Yankee listen when they’re starting from a false premise in the first place.

Ding-a-ling. I’ve had folks over at Pandagon attempt to issue slapdowns on me because I’m to blame for Jerry Falwell. Right. As if I didn’t spend a solid amount of time bashing the guy anyway. And then there’s this:

Who has invested an inordinate amount of their lifetime attempting to control how people think?
Richard Dawkins: Yes
Jerry Falwell: Yes
D.N. Nation: No

So when you’re wondering who is actually vs. who, refer to the above.

Threadjack ovah.

 
 

Wow, it gets even better. CY goes to great lengths to plant the idea that conservatives don’t see Michelle Obama as a militant radical:

There is precious little truth, for example, in the casting of Michelle Obama as an apparent black nationalist. When mentioned by her detractors, Mrs. Obama is more likely to be mocked as a Hyde Park Eeyore than a militant disciple of Bobby Seale. Depictions of her as an Affirmative Action-enabled whiner with dubious patriotism are not uncommon, but she has never been portrayed as being violent.

Then his first effing commenter comes and blows it away:

The AK 47 is perfect. Yes, they both support gun control, but she comes across as a commie black militant, and the AK 47 is a symbol of Commie militancy.

Never mind that now it is a hot, cheap item at gun shows with the gun owners/collectors/ 2nd amendment activists.
Posted by: Smarty at July 14, 2008 09:48 AM

Delicious.

 
 

Well, you could always take the “Jews for Jesus” route and go all “Southerners Against the Confederacy” on them.

Do a little JewJitsu on dem cracker assholes.

Well, that’s what I do, or try to do, anyway. It’s not easy because of the massive bullshit story The South (meaning white people in the South) has told itself about, well, everyfucking thing that’s happened. “We weren’t wrong,” they’ll explain. “It was just the times.” As if being, at very best, too chickenshit to stand up to evil and hypocracy makes it all better.

And the most irritating part, unless the person is an unmittigated racist and you can generally tell the difference, is s/he knows how full of shit s/he is. It shows in the eyes, that little sparkle of doubt that maybe, just maybe what we were told ain’t so. So the cloud of bullshit gets kicked up higher. You know, it was brought to my attention just a few weeks ago that playing country songs celebrating “rednecks” might not be taken well from people who’ve been living in mortal terror of rednecks for the past near-200 years. I’m still a little stunned at how I totally missed that.

So I have some sympathy with liberal Christians against the Bill Donohues and Jerry Falwells of the world, and that’s what I meant with the sentence you quoted. Sloppy writing on my part – I try not to give liberal Christians too much shit inre: fundie douchbags because, well, I’m an atheist and think their religion is dumb – but it did spur on other thoughts that needed thinking, so hey…there ya go.

 
 

… the New Yorker falls into that category if you live outside the neo-Copernican worldview of a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe…

Dunno if it’s funny or not but the NYer, for years, has been seen as focused on flyover topics, too suburban, too Tina Brown, too so-so, to be a vital NY read. NYRB is still a must read. The NYer, not so much. Sure, the NYer franchise lives off being too NY but that’s just it, it’s like a TV show of NY and hardly reflects life in NY. Once up a time, maybe. But now, it’s just another micro-channel magazine for people interested in NY fantasy league.

Give’em a few months and just when Mr. Yankee is thinking about hanging it up, the NY will profile Mr. Yankee. That’s the new NYer.

 
 

I don’t know if I’d agree that Richard Dawkins spent the bulk of his life trying to control how people think. I’d say he spent the bulk of his life trying to figure how this thing we call Life ticks along and the last dozen years or so taking the fight back to assholes who’re trying, for whatever reason, derail the whole science thing by being hateful, lying jackasses. I mean, what do you expect him to do when confronted with the Ken Hams of the world? Besides, I refuse to believe that Lala Ward would associate herself with someone that tried to something horrible like control people’s minds.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t know if I’d agree that Jerry Falwell spent his life trying to control how people think. I think he spent his life trying to rake in more and more money from the gullible masses and consolidating his powerbase using fear, ignorance and loathing. Why, I don’t know. Probably had something to do with his dick, I imagine.

 
Dragon-King Wangchuck
 

Besides, I refuse to believe that Lala Ward would associate herself with someone that tried to something horrible like control people’s minds.

There’s three l’s in Sarah Ward’s name. And being a Bangor, she’s directly descended from the Plantagenet line, a great-great…grand-daughter of Richard the Fucking Lion-Hearted so spell her name right or it’ll be another Holy War.

 
 

I mean, what do you expect him to do when confronted with the Ken Hams of the world?

1) Laugh.
2) Ignore.
3) Perhaps not group liberal Christians and others who quietly assume some sort of other answer along with the ones we can measure out along with these morons? Just maybe?

It’s never been any of Dawkins or Falwell’s damn business what I think, despite their squealing to the contrary. This sort of paradigm puts them on the same side of oh-so-against me. Falwell’s sins are Dawkins’, and vice versa. Why does Dawkins agree with a life trying to rake in more and more money from the gullible masses and consolidating his powerbase using fear, ignorance and loathing? Because that’s the lifestyle he supports.

 
 

Woodrowfan said,

July 14, 2008 at 18:43

Besides, the REAL center of the universe is here in DC, inside the Beltway (blessed be its inner and outer loops)

I, Robot 495

 
 

D.N. Nation,

Horsefeathers, but I’m not going to argue this point further with you. If you honestly think Richard Dawkins the scientist and Jerry Falwell the televangelist are coming from the exact same place and intent, I simply can no longer take you seriously.

 
 

I must say, I feel a lot better after reading the opinions of people here on that cover. I’d been getting mighty depressed by all the humorless types over at DK and elsewhere.

I took one look at that cover and laughed out fucking loud. It’s not often a cartoon can do that to me. The satire was obvious and immediately apparent. I knew there was a reason I’ve been spending more time at places like this, and less time at places like DK.

 
 

If you honestly think Richard Dawkins the scientist and Jerry Falwell the televangelist are coming from the exact same place and intent, I simply can no longer take you seriously.

Noted.

 
 

Science tends to be a good thing, or at least a neutral thing that, although it can and has been used for bad purposes has created the life of ridiculous wealth and comfort we live.

Religion and superstition are just silly, to put it charitably, and an active force for harm in the world at least as often as not. The net impact of religion and superstition has been bad for humanity. The net impact of science has been very good for humanity.

To whatever extent you see them both as proponents of their particular worldview, Dawkins has done a great deal of good, and Falwell a great deal of harm.

mikey

 
 

To whatever extent you see them both as proponents of their particular worldview, Dawkins has done a great deal of good

Good for him.

 
 

Who has invested an inordinate amount of their lifetime attempting to control how people think?
Richard Dawkins: Yes
Jerry Falwell: Yes
D.N. Nation: No

Well, when we’re approaching another D.N. Nation-has-to-have-the-last-word thread it’s time to call bullshit on that one.

 
 

Well, when we’re approaching another D.N. Nation-has-to-have-the-last-word thread it’s time to call bullshit on that one.

I don’t want you to agree with me.

 
 

I don’t want you to agree with me.

So this is the thread in which I can proclaim my support for Nader?

 
 

3) Perhaps not group liberal Christians and others who quietly assume some sort of other answer along with the ones we can measure out along with these morons? Just maybe?

Why would anyone “quietly assume some other answer” without empirical evidence? I’m not being snarky; I just have never understood this, and no one has ever explained it to my satisfaction. The usual answer is”The Bible says so,” which is no answer at all.

Oh well, you’d think I’d have given up by now, and this isn’t the thread for it. Got class now anyway. Just a little over two weeks until break . . .

 
 

So this is the thread in which I can proclaim my support for Nader?

You’re good people, RB.

Why would anyone “quietly assume some other answer” without empirical evidence?

Cuz I wanna. Cuz I like to. And it’s no damn business of yours.

I just have never understood this, and no one has ever explained it to my satisfaction.

Ahh, see, here’s a tip:

You don’t deserve to have it explained to you “to your satisfaction.” It’s absolutely none of your business.

 
Cathal Brouhaha
 

So this is the thread in which I can proclaim my support for Nader?

You are just the worst person ever. Beneath my contempt in fact.

 
 

Oh wow, Cathal’s back. Sup.

 
 

It’s absolutely none of your business.

But it might be in certain circumstances. I don’t know if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness or not and maybe you want to withhold a transfusion from your kid.

The Dawkins gripe is that acceptance of innocuous belief in the unprovable means that pernicious belief in the unprovable can often get a pass.

I don’t buy that the beliefs themselves are going away and if you’ve got one and you’re harming nobody, good for you. Nevertheless you’re going to have to live with people questioning your beliefs because in general it’s a good idea to question things like that.

 
 

I don’t buy that the beliefs themselves are going away and if you’ve got one and you’re harming nobody, good for you. Nevertheless you’re going to have to live with people questioning your beliefs because in general it’s a good idea to question things like that.

Take a step back. Think about the following: Confederate Yankee, Obama, Marxism, Islam.

Now let’s go back to your quote.

Nevertheless you’re going to have to live with people questioning your beliefs because in general it’s a good idea to question things like that.

Heh.

 
 

You’re going to have to make whatever you’re saying clearer for me.

 
 

For instance, I may “believe I’ll have another tequila fannybanger.”
And that’s all well and good.
If, however, I drive a gasoline tanker truck for a living, and am on my way to work, I’d say pretty much everybody has a right to question my belief.
And the bartender has an obligation …
( ‘swhy I prefer to mix my own drinks.)

 
 

Also,

The Dawkins gripe is that acceptance of innocuous belief in the unprovable means that pernicious belief in the unprovable can often get a pass.

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)

 
 

Nevertheless you’re going to have to live with people questioning your beliefs because in general it’s a good idea to question things like that.

Doesn’t this remind you of the same sort of nonsense gooper trolls like Confeddie always whip out against Obama? As in, he’s vaguely liberal, we can use some mental gymnastics to prove he’s something having to do with Islam…thus, he’s gotta suck it up when we claim he’s some sort of sleeper Muslim Maoist robot? Because it’s just…a good idea to question stizzuff?

Screw that.

And FWIW, I pray every night because the BOCP includes passages and prayers to remind me about the poor, the sick, the less fortunate. Call it a mental exercise. That’s all I’ll tell you. It’s none of your business.

 
 

I think “Confederate Yankee” just doesn’t do this guy justice … perhaps “Eloquent Imbecile” would be more fitting, while allowing him to keep the whole oxymoronic gimmick.

Hey now – poor Michelle Malkin’s been waiting her whole LIFE to finally use the “Grow A Pair” line on someone ELSE for once, & you wanna pee in her Wheetabix? Well … go right ahead!
But please, not until a couple of hours after you’ve woofed back a LOT of ‘shrooms – I’ll pay good money to see that hag go truly postal, shaman-style. Bring a webcam along, For Great Justice.

 
 

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)

It’s been a while since my symbolic logic days but you’re misstating the argument.

 
 

Doesn’t this remind you of the same sort of nonsense gooper trolls like Confeddie always whip out against Obama? As in, he’s vaguely liberal, we can use some mental gymnastics to prove he’s something having to do with Islam…thus, he’s gotta suck it up when we claim he’s some sort of sleeper Muslim Maoist robot? Because it’s just…a good idea to question stizzuff?

No, it really doesn’t. If you want an answer to the Obama/Muslim question, one exists and it’s clear. If you want an answer to the God question, many answers exist, none provable.

 
 

Religion causing harm is a straw man?

People don’t think rationally, usually. If they can find an excuse to behave badly, they will take it. Religion gives them that excuse, because it provides them with the ultimate authority that cannot be questioned. If we’re stupid enough to let them get away with it.

Religious belief isn’t something special. It just means your indulge in rites of worship of an ancient god. If I wanted to prance around in a toga and sacirifice a goat to Zeus or Athena at the local mall, that doesn’t mean you should have to cater to my stupidity.

 
 

No, it really doesn’t. If you want an answer to the Obama/Muslim question, one exists and it’s clear. If you want an answer to the God question, many answers exist, none provable.

Wrong question.

If you want an answer to the Obama/Muslim question, one exists and it’s clear.
If you want an answer to whether or not the BOCP or going to church makes me want to do harmfully irrational things, one exists and it’s clear. That is, unless, you think me trashing Nader on the Internets is a horrible, horrible activity. And religion didn’t even get me to that point.

Religion gives them that excuse, because it provides them with the ultimate authority that cannot be questioned. If we’re stupid enough to let them get away with it.

Assholes = assholes no matter what the game. So target the assholes.

Religious belief isn’t something special. It just means your indulge in rites of worship of an ancient god.

Yeah, I suck.

If I wanted to prance around in a toga and sacirifice a goat to Zeus or Athena at the local mall, that doesn’t mean you should have to cater to my stupidity.

I’m not prancing or sacrificing.

 
 

And FWIW, I pray every night because the BOCP includes passages and prayers to remind me about the poor, the sick, the less fortunate. Call it a mental exercise. That’s all I’ll tell you. It’s none of your business.

This is fine and although I’m pretty much a dick about religion I’m one of the dicks that thinks a little – here comes more dickery – self-deception has paid off for a variety of people. I think of my father-in-law, a swell guy who was a not-so-swell alcoholic. Faith in a higher power helps him avoid the sauce. Great, and he seems no more nutty than I am. Do I want to sit him down and tell him what he believes is bullshit? Not really, not very helpful. But he sent me a Sam Harris book for my birthday so he’s obviously enough of an adult to take an adult argument.

 
 

If you want an answer to whether or not the BOCP or going to church makes me want to do harmfully irrational things, one exists and it’s clear.

No, many exist.

 
 

LEAVE D.N. NATION ALONE!! LEAVE ‘IM ALONE!! *sobs*

 
 

Many answers that is.

 
 

Hey, guys, don’t pick on D.N. Nation. He just has a different “way of knowing,” the same way he knows Ralph Nader is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Hitlerburton.

 
 

No, many exist.

Bzzzt. Sorry, the correct answer is:

Saying Compline reminds D.N. Nation to care for other people. Not a bad thing.

This is fine and although I’m pretty much a dick about religion I’m one of the dicks that thinks a little – here comes more dickery – self-deception has paid off for a variety of people.

I love my wife, a scientist and an athiest, because she sees me reading from the BOCP every night, and has this conclusion- Well, whatever works. See that? No need for the “self-deception” wankery whatsoever.

But he sent me a Sam Harris book for my birthday so he’s obviously enough of an adult to take an adult argument.

Sam Harris has his strong points (his clarification on atheism’s definition) and his completely banal ones (OMG didja know the Bible probubbly wasn’t inspired by God! ORLY? Wow, Biblical scholars have NEVER come up with that one!). Eh.

 
 

Bzzzt. Sorry, the correct answer is:

That’s the answer you play on the internet. If it’s you, then great.

 
 

The real-life D.N. Nation is actually a Siberian weightlifter.

 
 

I got this wrong:

If you want an answer to whether or not the BOCP or going to church makes me want to do harmfully irrational things, one exists and it’s clear.

What I want to answer is that obviously going to church results in an amount of people doing harmfully irrational things, not you in particular.

 
 

but then, much of the content of the New Yorker falls into that category if you live outside the neo-Copernican worldview of a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe. Those of us outside of that self-involved hemorrhage of land between the Hudson and East Rivers are simply part of a bitter and clingy “not us” to the magazine’s erudite familiars.

Man, where to start on this. Copernicus was the one creditied with discovering that the universe did not revolve around the Earth. Whatever “neo-Coperican” is supposed to mean it could in no way be used to describe a people who think the universe reloves around themselves. Unless you were trying to write way above your own ability. Besides, if you’re going to try to tag the New Yorker as a Manhattan centric publication, you’d probably bother to use the great gazoogle just to make sure it doesn’t, for instance, sell more subscriptions in California that in all of New York State. But then people who are ignorant enough to believe that a dap is a “terrorist fist bump” aren’t supposed to find the cartoon funny. They’re the butt of the joke and why the magazine appeals to so many people. The fact that they don’t see it as a joke is really the best part of the joke, or the only part. Otherwise there isn’t anything partcularly clever about the way the obama myths are represented or anything especially great about the technique of the art. The joke is the people it makes fun of, don’t even know it. The weird part is that CY knows this and his response is to go ahead and defend the use of all these provably ficticious Obama smears.

It is perhaps this great unknowing of life to the left of the West Side Highway that causes even the caricatures of the Obama family to be wildly inaccurate. A lampoon is only effective when it contains truth, and certain elements of the imagery fall apart under even passing review.

It would seem that this is not a good joke to CY because the cartoonist doesn’t get the rumors right. Michelle Obama is not a militant seh an affirmative action Eyore. Touche, CY. but then…

Other parts of the caricature were sadly more on target in displaying common attacks directed against Obama.

Oh, so it is a good lampoon after all.

The caricature based upon rumors associated with Barack Obama in the New Yorker is distasteful. A picture based upon just the facts would even more inflammatory.

Wait, so the cartonn did make fun of things were were actually false. But if the cartoon had depicted Michelle Obama gettin in to Prnceton only because she was black and Barack’s actual Muslim half brother and that Obama’s middle name is Hussein it would have been better? This heartland humor is too suffistikated for my tastes. I’ll stick with the easy New Yorker stuff.

 
 

What I want to answer is that obviously going to church results in an amount of people doing harmfully irrational things, not you in particular.

Obviously Marxism results in an amount of people doing harmfully irrational things, not Obama in particular, but we should question him nonetheless. Hand me the waterboard!

 
 

Obviously Marxism results in an amount of people doing harmfully irrational things, not Obama in particular, but we should question him nonetheless.

Obama is not a Marxist, you are a Christian.

 
 

Obama is not a Marxist (he is a liberal)
I am not an evangelical (I am a Christian).

Anyhoo, bored. Sorry for the threadjack.

 
 

Obama is not a Marxist (he is a liberal)
I am not an evangelical (I am a Christian).

I’m not sure what you intend this to mean, but the broad category of “Christian” does not mean “great guy”.

 
 

The fact is, any post about Confederate Wanker should always include the laughter video.

 
 

but the broad category of “Christian” does not mean “great guy”.

Nor does “liberal.”

 
 

but then, much of the content of the New Yorker falls into that category if you live outside the neo-Copernican worldview of a magazine that sees Manhattan as the center of the universe. Those of us outside of that self-involved hemorrhage of land between the Hudson and East Rivers are simply part of a bitter and clingy “not us” to the magazine’s erudite familiars.

I think TIDOS might have this cover in mind with that view of the New Yorker. I don’t think he gets that Steinberg was actually satirizing New York style provincialism which gives me a vision of him hopelessly wandering around NYC using this one as his neighborhood map.

 
 

I’m not prancing or sacrificing.

You don’t know what you’re missing

 
 

I wanted a better christmas present, so I sacrificed Prancer…

mikey

 
 

I’d also like to mention to the moron talking about Tina Brown and a decade ago and otherwise confusing the New Yorker with New York Magazine that they’re full of shit.
Besides, giving Seymour Hersh a platform makes up for a lot of sins, though I’m still pissed about the fluff piece on Lou Dobbs from last year.

 
 

Sacrificed Prancer and freshly-skinned Vixen,
Harpoon-impaled Donner and guillotined Blitzen,
Suffering Rudolph all tied up with strings,
These are a few of my favorite things.

 
 

I visited Kansas 15 years ago, on a business trip.

I rode up to my hotel room with a man in the elevator who had a picture of a dismembered fetus on his t-shirt. And no one batted an eye.

My friend got coffee at a convenience store and the clerk played a joke on him that burned his tongue, badly. And the clerk laughed.

All the local TV advertisements emphasized that “We’re not New York!”

The locals noticed we were “not from around there” and would not return smiles.

I have gotten more human recognition from homeless people in Manhattan.

That’s the fabled “Heartland.” Where strangers are regarded with outright suspicion, overtly displayed. Where they define themselves by what they are not. Where every face was as white as mine and they still refused to grant even the most fleeting sense of social kinship.

It’s no wonder Dorothy left.

 
 

It’s been a while since my symbolic logic days but you’re misstating the argument.

In the same awful way libertarians are victims of Economics 101, D.N dozed off before existential instantiation.

 
 

Obama is not a Marxist (he is a liberal)
I am not an evangelical (I am a Christian).

You do know that Marxism isn’t a subset of liberalism, right?

 
 

“When you’re surrounded by idiots you cling to the belief that there’s a place where you’d fit in and find like-minded people. It’s all we have sometimes.”

Ditto here in Mississippi.

 
 

a different brad: Tina Brown actually was the editor of the New Yorker for a while back in the early 90s. It was a dark dark time indeed, but thank goodness she didn’t succeed in completely trashing the magazine.

 
 

“When you’re surrounded by idiots you cling to the belief that there’s a place where you’d fit in and find like-minded people. It’s all we have sometimes.” Ditto here in Mississippi.

As a resident of the glorious border state of Tennessee, I heart NY. It’s of little comfort that I’ve been told all my life I have a “New York” personality and “talk like a Yankee,” whatever that means.

 
nationalplumbingcodehandbook
 

…Tina Brown…

It’s not just Tina Brown. It’s that the NYer really is a national magazine now, and just not important to day to day life, even day to day intellectual life, in the city. Ms. Treasman is a lovely person but her role at the NY is to keep the fiction middlebrow. Same, I’d say, with Remnick and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind middlebrow. I like Sex in the City, even though, of course, I don’t live in that NY. And, yeah, I think the NYer is better than, say, Time. However, it’s been susceptible to same kind of neocon spin as other American magazines. Think, oh, Jeffery Goldberg, for example.

 
 

which gives me a vision of him hopelessly wandering around NYC using this one as his neighborhood map

I’d gladly move to Gaymenistan, but I’m a little worried that it shares a border with Psychobabylon.

 
 

[…] is an absolutely literal and accurate accurate depiction of the secret life of the Obamas , see here, here, and […]

 
 

(comments are closed)