A Picture’s Worth …
… A THOUSAND IRONIES
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews - July 16, 2008 - It sure does make our jobs easier when liberals start cannibalizing each other, which is exactly what’s happening in the wake of The New Yorker ’s controversial cover pictorial of Barack and Michelle Obama.
The New Yorker , which boasts a liberal latte-swilling, pseudo-intellectual subscription base, is being vilified by … liberal latte-swilling pseudo-intellectuals. The ever-offended left, normally content to direct their feigned outrage toward conservatives, is screeching about the racist, misogynist, hateful implications of the magazine’s cover.
We heard about the cover before we saw it, and after taking a look at it we’re not sure what all the fuss is about. Seriously, it’s kind of mundane, especially compared to this picture of Michelle Obama (incidentally, that cheeky pic was featured on The Daily Kos, also an ultra-liberal outlet).
Anyway, it seems that liberals are upset not that their Anointed One was shown in a less-than-flattering light, but rather that he was finally shown in the light at all.
Obamaniacs have for some time sought to shield their candidate from the light of day, perhaps afraid that once his veil is lifted he’ll look a lot less golden.
That may explain their outrage over the magazine cover. You see, the stuff that the haters are complaining about is stuff that, even if true, would not be at all derogatory.
For example, the magazine cover portrays Barack Obama in Muslim garb. Frankly, if we were capable of being offended, we’d be offended by the notion that Muslim garb is offensive. Seriously, there just isn’t anything inherently wrong with depicting someone in Muslim clothing - even if that person is not a Muslim. A suggestion otherwise is an indictment of Islam - which we’re certainly not opposed to, except when it comes from diversity-hailing liberals.
Next, some are upset that Michelle Obama’s hair is depicted in curls. Apparently, it is racist and misogynist to show a black woman’s hair doing what a black woman’s hair does. Of course, had her hair been straightened in the picture, the same crowd would be shrieking that Michelle’s blackness was being questioned or that she was being whitewashed.
Finally, the fist bump. People are really incensed about the fist bump, apparently fearing that it…what? Implies marital solidarity? Implies that Barack and Michelle are in cahoots to take over the country? Nobody seems able to explain why the fist bump is so bad - we’re just expected to agree that it is…because it must have some racial undertone, even if nobody can point to one.
The haters are right: The New Yorker ’s cover wasn’t satirical - satire is rarely accomplished by a strictly literal portrayal, and the picture was nothing if not a literal depiction of the Obamas. The couple bumps fists, Michelle’s hair kinks, and Obama’s got a white mama - and Muslim roots.
That liberals are offended by the cover suggests that they’re actually offended by the Obamas themselves.
They’re just too love-drunk to realize it.
Comments
By Piepton on July 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I guess liberals have been dealing with ignorant people who believe this image to be an accurate portrayal of reality for so long that some of them have lost their sense of humor.
By candace bergen-belsen on July 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Mande, you need to look in the mirror before calling anyone “pseudo-intellectual”.
By reggie on July 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
i think that they are using the word “satire” as a scapegoat. i mean, i can see their reasoning of debunking rumors and lies, but this takes it just a little to far. im not saying that im offended because im not. i just think that the new yorker took it to far this time. its a good thing obama kept his cool and didnt/hasnt freaked out about this yet.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on July 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Talk about an Inconvenient Truth! The poor libs just don’t have a sense of humor. Hell, they think Al Franken is comical, and not in a patronizing or sad way.
By Chucktown Import on July 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Fits,
As always, you miss the mark. Put the bourbon down, try a latte for once, and perhaps the filth that you usually type will carry a bit more insight.
The angst that has come out because of the cover is not really based on the muslim garb, afro, or “pound” but rather the burning American flag, AK-47, and portrait of Bin Laden over the White House fireplace. If that’s a “literal depiction of the Obamas” then you should probably just insert a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts when you are under the influence of psylocibic mushrooms.
While I may be one of the few that appreciated the satire, I can certainly understand the negative reactions…
By FWFIV on July 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
The real joke is on the scores of conservative blowhards who have propogated the ideas pictured on the cover.
The fact that a sizable percentage of the population still believes Obama is a Muslim proves the persistence of their lies. A similar example is the fact that so many Fox viewers still believe Iraq had a role in September 11.
By rick on July 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Love the tolerance the liberals show for their own. Nothing like feeding on one’s young.
By Con-lib on July 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You addressed the hair, the muslim garb and the fist pump. What about the burning flag and the portrait of Bin Ladin and the AK-47? I apreciate satire as much as anyone. This, however was poorly done, maybe even moreso than your feeble attempt to justify why “Obamaniacs” should not be upset. If Iam offended by this, I am offended by the Obama’s??? Your brain works in really strange ways, or as I see it, not at all.
By baker on July 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I don’t really have an opinion on the magazine cover. But I think to call it a “literal depiction” is another of Mande’s fairly ridiculously off-base comments.
Yes, the hair of a black woman in naturally curly, but she styles it differently. It’s sort of like putting up a picture of a guy and putting a long beard on him….”sure, he normally shaves, but if he didn’t, then he’d have a beard….so it’s literal….” Or something like that.
Is the machine-gun a “literal depiction,” too?
By Mande's mom on July 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Mande the Moron strikes again.
By Satire: Subliminal Art Or Poison Dart? on July 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Satire is a double-edged sword, especially when the intent is not as transparent as the portrayer might assume.
To me, this cover can be construed two different ways.
First it might poke fun at the uninformed public who still believes the dribble about Obama’s radical Muslim leanings. (and Mande, your analysis about fashion is rather silly given the Bin Laden portrait and burning American flag in the oval office.)
Second, it might suggest rather the opposite by attempting to fuel the rumors into a larger fire, thereby attacking Obama himself.
Satire is tricky isn’t it? It always seems to imply some underlying truth and yet in this case, the magazine cover satirizes an untruth.
By Guero on July 17th, 2008 at 5:50 am
This is something long-time readers (three weeks?) know all-too-well. Mande is just not very smart.
She has had a string of head-scratchers. Osama Obama is just the latest.
Good Samaritan lawsuits was the first of her droolings. She then followed up with a constitutional law outburst on slavery and Obama.
It’s just too much to keep up with. Just take it to the bank, Mande’s challenged. When y’all see that byline, we’re talking the female equivalent of Armstrong Williams. Look out for the falling IQs!
By CL on July 17th, 2008 at 6:51 am
“The real joke is on the scores of conservative blowhards who have propogated the ideas pictured on the cover.”
Identify one “conservative blow hard” that has done this. Typical liberal historical blindness. It was Hillary that was circulating the picture of Obama in muslim garb. It was her campaign that suggested to the media that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia. And it was a Hillary supporter at No Quarter that floated the Michelle Obama video rumor. I know Democrats forget or like to pretend that they were not the party of slavery, Jim Crow, eugenics and 60’s radicalism, but you would think you could at least get it straight that it was LIBERALS spreading these ideas about Obama since it was just a few months ago.
Meanwhile McCain and his fellow Republican “blowhards” have gone too far the other way, and are almost pathologically unwilling to criticize Obama over the very real concerns about his associations with terrorists (Ayers, not Osama) and racists (Rev. Wrong).
By Margaret on July 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
FWFIV writes: “The real joke is on the scores of conservative blowhards who have propogated the ideas pictured on the cover.”
If you ask me, the real, REAL joke is on the editors at the New Yorker. Yes, their intent is to bust on the “conservative blowhards” who have propogated these ideas, but they’re too out-of-touch with “regular Americans” to understand just how many people actually believe this stuff about the Obamas. And many of those people are as irony-deficient as the New Yorker is irony-overloaded. It probably never occurred to the sophisticates at the magazine that their clever little “joke” might actually stoke the fears and prejudices they so delight in mocking. If this cover ends up hurting Obama’s campaign, it’s take their precious irony to all new heights!
By Margaret on July 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
CL, you’re so right in pointing out that it was the Hillary campaign that first began stirring up these ideas about the Obamas, and also right in pointing out that mainstream Republicans have gone out their way to “condemn” such talk. Obama’s longtime association with Bill Ayers, a violent and unrepentant criminal, has received WAY too little scrutiny in the MSM.
By Obama killing McCain in the state by state polls on July 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
You know what is really noteworthy. Obama is killing McCain in the polls. Go to Zogby and look at a state by state breakdown . It ain’t even close- of course the main stream media wants to act like it is a horse race but it is not.
check it out and forget about McCain - he is asleep at the back of the bus.
http://www.zogby.com/50state/
By reggie on July 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
although true about the clintions, i dont think people should attack obama by using people like rev. wrong, nor for throwing up his muslim heritage. sure, he was in a muslim garb, but his father was muslim and he was with his family. thats like someone getting on me about wearing a santa hat and i celebreate christmas with my family.
i really dont see how people can say that obamas a muslim, (when he clearly isnt) and that he is just another black guy. i dont know if some of you forgot, but obama IS half white.
also, to the person who was talking about the democrats and jim crow laws, the parties were baisicly flipped until after the civil rights movement. so even that shouldnt even be a card in play because after jim crow, the parties became what they are today and it was really the republicans who came up with the jim crow laws
By PolticalWorld on July 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I can not believe the Editors of the New Yorker did not see the damage that this will do when there is a percentage of the population that still thinks Obama is a Muslim, that he went to school at a Madrass. This cover will be seen by millions who will not read the article as they see it on newsstands and it will enforce the views that they are fed by Rush and the Boys
By CL on July 17th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
#20,
“will enforce the views that they are fed by Rush and the Boys”
Again, Hillary circulated the madrass story and the picture in Muslim garb. You have not cited a single instance where Rush Limbaugh or any other prominent conservative “fed” these rumors. You can’t because it is a lie.
#19,
“it was really the republicans who came up with the jim crow laws . . .”
Are you kidding? You do understand that Jim Crow was implemented after Reconstruction (i.e. after the Republicans were all thrown out of the South) by Democrats? It was the Democrats baby, and they presided happily over the system for almost a century. Democrats finally wised up in the 60’s on this issue, but quit trying to rewrite history. Jim Crow belongs to Democrats like Ben Tillman.
By baker on July 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
CL — “Reggie” was obviously saying that the parties were different in the old days: the conservatives on race (if “conservative” is exactly the word for it) were then Democrats, and as the Democratic party changed in the 1960s the racists veered, in general, to the GOP. Thus, the “Southern Strategy,” etc.
Reggie was quite clearly NOT saying that the Republicans were literally the ones who created Jim Crow laws.
Now, historians may legitimately debate the deal on the modern GOP and Dem parties. It wasn’t ONLY race that drove Southern conservatives to the Republican side….but there is pretty general consensus, I think, that race had a good bit to do with it and that conservative politicians have used racism to gain votes. Supporters of George W. Bush even used it on John McCain in SC, right Will?
By CL on July 18th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Baker,
Reggie may not have meant it, but he said it. The conservative movement in this country did not even exist at the time Jim Crow was implemented. It was developed by men like Buckley in the 20th century to combat the totalitarian threat that communism posed to our founding principles. The movement attracted segregationists in the death rattle of Jim Crow because the limited government principles of the conservative movement gave them their only refuge against escalating federal intervention. There is nothing conservative about racism. The problem conservatives faced is that segregation pitted two conservative values - individual liberty and limited government - against each other.
And I don’t agree with your general assertion that Republicans use racism to gain votes anymore than Democrats do. For every anecdote you could cite, I am sure I could counter. For instance, it has become accepted doctrine that the Willie Horton ads run by Bush I were racist, but people forget that it was Al Gore that first introduced the topic into the race in the Democratic primary.
The point is that Liberals like to cast politics in terms of the virtuous liberals against the evil, racist republicans. Every negative act by a Republican becomes a permanent stain on both the party and conservatism, but there is never reciprocity for liberals. They exhibit historical blindness towards their own skeletons while constantly reminding Republicans of their embarassing predecessors.
By baker on July 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
CL — I’m not going to get into a deep debate with you over history here. I disagree with you analysis, for the most part, but you can take that up with someone who has a PhD, if you’d like (and I don’t). I do not think racism was the only thing that drove white conservatives to the GOP, but I think it’s nearly irrefutable — though, again, historians may differ in their opinions — that race had to do with the fact that many switched parties.
As for the “conservative movement,” sure, guys like William Buckley in the 20th Century helped define such. But that does not mean that there weren’t people who were essentially conservative all along. Good grief. Was everyone liberal before Buckley came along? Of course not. There have always been leaders and thinkers in America who were more progressive on some issues than others, more resistant to change than others, more driven by race-related issues than others, on and on and on.
Jim Crow laws may not have been part of the “conservative movement” you describe — and it may be difficult to casually apply political labels as we understand them today at all — but it would be absurd to suggest that Jim Crow was somehow a liberal or progressive effort.
By CL on July 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am
” But that does not mean that there weren’t people who were essentially conservative all along. Good grief. Was everyone liberal before Buckley came along? ”
Depends upon what you mean by conservative. Your question assumes these terms are static; they are not. For instance, the closest historical comparator to modern conservatives are “classical” liberals like Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke. Yet none of their contemporaries would have called these individuals “conservative” in any sense. They were liberals. However, their political beliefs closely mirror those of the modern conservatives in this country. And what we mean by the American conservative movement is largely a creation of the 20th century.
Along those same lines, I did not claim Jim Crow was progressive (Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think that term was even widely in use in this country at the time, as the Progressive Party was not founded until 1912) or liberal - I said it was the Democrat’s baby. And if you want to play the game of saying “but if they were alive today they would be Republicans” then you have to give us some of the party’s heroes like Jefferson as well (because of his belief in limited government and individual liberty, not because he owned slaves).
By reggie on July 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
ok, yes, CL is right for saying that jim crow belongs to the democrats, BUT you can analyze this like the seatle supersonics move to OKC. the OKC team becomes a new franchise, BUT it is rooted in seatle history. so the OKC team is baisicly the same old seatle team with a different name. (with OKC being the libral democrat and seatle being the then conservitive democrat) so, CL, i commend you on your analyas while defending bakers position on this whole debate.
By baker on July 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“Your question assumes these terms are static; they are not.”
Actually, CL, I think we agree on your assessment here (that political terminology isn’t static), and I thought I was trying to say something along those lines. Maybe I didn’t word it very well.
The closest we can probably come to some meaningful analysis of modern-day parties and modern-day notions of “liberal” and “conservative” would be to look at the Civil Rights period onward. And, again, while historians may disagree amongst themselves, I would think it’s pretty much consensus opinion that while race wasn’t the ONLY factor, it was, in many cases, an important factor that drove white Southern conservatives to the GOP…..I think I added enough qualifiers there to make that a pretty safe statement. :).
By CL on July 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Baker,
“race was . . .an important factor that drove white Southern conservatives to the GOP”
I know what you are trying to say and I don’t mean to pick nits, but I think people tend to conflate Republican and conservative too much. I don’t disagree that many white Southerners flocked to the Republican party for racist reasons in the 60’s. However, I think it is unfair to introduce conservatism to that statement or to anchor your definition of conservatism in the post-Civil Rights era. It suggests that opposition to the civil rights movement is a core tenet of conservatism. I think it is unfair to ignore the role of the Cold War and the fight against communism in the formation of the conservative movement and shift forward several decades to define conservatism.
This is not to say that the Civil Rights movement is irrelevant to conservatism. To the contrary. It reveals a possible flaw in the ideology. If the consensus is that government intervention was in fact necessary and appropriate to undo Jim Crow (as Goldwater and Buckley later suggested), then what does that mean about conservativism’s first principles of limited government? I think there is an answer to this question , but it is a valid one.
Trackbacks