Satire? They have to be kidding. Are the editorial staff of the New Yorker so tone-deaf to the political realities in this country that they don't understand how their self-indulgent "satire" will be put to use? By reducing the argument, as they do in their response to criticism, to purely literary and aesthetic considerations, they prove themselves to be asinine beyond belief. As others besides myself have pointed out, this idiocy hands the yahoos a weapon they themselves would not have had the wit to hone. In their sense of intellectual entitlement, they forget the vast mass of voters who lack the critical discrimination to read their cover in other than literal terms: those many who will understand it at face value, not for its ironical intention.
I notice that Obama's poll numbers have dropped significantly in the past week alone. along with his fund-raising potential. Thank his liberal friends, from Reverend Jesse Jackson to the idealist left-wing bloggers and mind-bogglingly stupid "literate" liberals like the New Yorker. I'm planning to send in another few dollars to support this candidate. I hope my readers will judiciously put aside their disagreements--no matter how much I might agree with their arduments--and join me in renewing our support. We simply cannot afford to sacrifice an entire election to our individual principles one more time. There's far too much at stake.
I'm hoping that the example of the New Yorker cover will prove a useful lesson to the liberal conscience about the risks incurred by this lack of circumspection. There's a single, over-riding goal at stake this time around. It's nothing less than the rescue of this country from self-destruction, not to mention the planet that we share with others. And that, to my way of thinking, is no exaggeration.
By the way, I have never done this before, because the gesture has seemed no more than petty spite, but I felt I had to make a statement, no matter how small: I canceled our subscription to the New Yorker. I hope millions of others do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. I sent a message to the New Yorker saying that they had to be as stupid as the public they obviously don't know to believe that most Americans will understand that their intent was to satirize. Unbelievable. I said that cover was an ass in the air, fuck me now invitation to the right wing to use as their favorite pornographic slop for the rest of the election. How clueless can you get?! And, as you say, with what's at stake it's appalling! I also said if they don't generate a cover on McCain equal in stupidity and mindless arrogance, I will cancel my subscription. You'll probably disagree with this last bit, but I'm so done with what the U.S. has become, I don't care. The New Yorker now MUST share its shame with the other side, or it will doubly unfair.
i suspect that we're being too kind and even perhaps a bit gullible to let the mag get off with such a lame claim of naive innocence. are they really that stupid?
I wish I had a New Yorker subscription to cancel. You remind me though that it's time to send Mr. Obama some more money. That I can do.
I think satire works when your audience is in on the joke, or if it is done so well it raises consciousness. The cover does neither.
The only way that I'd find the cartoon semi-workable is if it showed Rush Limbaugh painting the cartoon.
Otherwise, as you said, people will use it to justify their hate and racism. And/or exploit the under-educated who are gullible to this kind of bullocks.
I too wish I had a subscription to cancel. But I too can donate some more and will.
Post a Comment