Boycott The New Yorker

UPDATE: 5:16 PM

WOW! What a surprise. James Carville found nothing wrong with the cover. He is on CNN right now trying to defend it.
****

In case you haven't seen it, the New Yorker has treated us to a modern day minstrel show with their latest magazine cover.  Fight back and join the Boycott the New Yorker FACEBOOK group today.

How can the New Yorker expect us to think that their defense of "its only satire"?  With all of the hatred that has already been heaped on Senator Obama, and on Michelle Obama, you would think that a magazine with a reputation like the New Yorker would have thought more about how this cover would be received.

•  No, I won't boycott it

  One cover does not undo the whole of the magazine.

  by BoiseBlue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM PDT

  •  It's plenty of reason to boycott and unsubscribe

    until those repsonsible are dismissed. You can always sign up again. One of the things so terrible about this is that it's The New Yorker, America's best magazine, that's debased itself with this filth.

    Frankly, I'd be dosappointed if the writers and staff themselves didn't take a stand about this. David Remnick just should not continue with this magazine.

    by LongTom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM PDT

    •  Only fired?

      Aren't you letting them off too easy?
      What about hot pokers up their asses?

      by ben masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM PDT

      •  I think...

        ... we should invade their countries and convert their leaders to Christianity.

        by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM PDT

      •  I think the worst punishment ever

        would be to draw a picture of the editors. I mean, the world has stopped over this stupid picture.

        by JohnGor0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM PDT

        •  We should plan a totally rad party...

          ...with trampolines and watergun fights and unicorn rides and totally not invite them.

          by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM PDT

          •  Off my f***king Xmas card list!! I meant it!!!!

            by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM PDT

            •  But on to the Ramadan card list!

              by johninPortland on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM PDT

              •  I shall sacrifice a fine fatted ram . . . . n/t

                by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:29 PM PDT

      •  Jews who countenance racism are a shonda.

        The cover is just like the anti-semitic propaganda the Nazis produced in the thirties to inflame the Germans against the Jews. Don't defend it. If they did a cover showing Lieberman and Haddassah as JDL terrorists, slaughtering their way through a refugee camp, you might not be so sanguine, I imagine.

        by LongTom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM PDT

        •  Lieberman only slaughters Lebanese

          in Grand Theft Auto.

          by ben masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:07:14 PM PDT

        •  it's really not

          I don't know how the fuck people can make that connnection, because those cartoons deride jewish people, and this, through ridicule, plainly derides the right wing caricature of Obama by showing it in all it's glorious hyperbole. I would probably find the lieberman thing funny too because I find all satire funny because it's satire. But reall,y you're a nut, it has no connection whatsoever to Nazi-anti-jew Propaganda.

          by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

        •  No, it isn't

          Since the intent of the cartoon was to ridicule those awful things said about Obama.  The Nazis meant what they said.

          That you would equate the two things is shameful.  You're lashing out in complete ignorance of the motives and beliefs of the artist and publishers.

          by Boris Godunov on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM PDT

      •  o, you city folk with your irony and whatnot /nt

        by hhex65 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM PDT

        •  City folk? I'm just a simple country boy

          from The Bronx.

          by ben masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM PDT

      •  only poker up ass?

        how about slapping them with an old sock too?

        by cacamp on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM PDT

      •  Drawn and quartered!

        My god it is so drearily predictable. Sigh.

        by crankyinNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

    •  Cheese K. Rist you do not get it.

      1.  All the furor will wind up helping Obama.

      2.  If you de-construct, you notice some interesting stuff, life, for instance,

      3.  Both Barack and Michelle are portrayed as lighter skinned than they are in person.

      4.  Michelle remarkably resembles Angela Davis in her Black Panther days.

      5.  Nice rendering of the terrorists ubiquitious AK-47, revolutionary weapond of choice.

      6.  The mistake the New Yorker made was thinking the yokels would understand that depicting the All-American/American Dream couple as a terrorist cell was so far beyond reality that only the dimbulbs of the right might possibly not get it.

      by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

      •  #6 is a pretty serious error.

        That's the problem to me. Sure, I get it. And it's the New Yorker's style to be minimalist about their humor rather than give the joke away (e.g. by encasing the image in a thought balloon); hell, that's why 95% of their cartoons are completely inscrutable.

        What's the rule, though, about the impossibility of constructing a parody that does not in fact closely resemble the reality of at least one extremist nutjob group? Putting it on the cover may well fuel the fires of groups that really do think that, and putting it in newsstands and on 24-hour newscasts everywhere gives it exposure well beyond those who get it.

        Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

        by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM PDT

      •  The thing that would've nailed it?

        Have a FOX News camera just barely visible sticking into the picture.

        by PBen on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM PDT

      •  cheese K rist, YOU don't get it

        you're too fucking oblivious to understand that some satire is bad and beyond the pale racist. If you can pull your head out there's light outside.

        by cacamp on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM PDT

        •  Racist??? What exactly is RACIST about

          the illustration??  The religious prejudice and the abhorrent association with Osama on the Wall are far more offensive than the relatively accurate depiction of the Obama's racial background.  

          by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM PDT

    •  Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

      Do you know who you're advocating be fired?

      Please do some research and learn a bit before spouting such things.

      I'll give you a hint--the artist is a great ally of progressives, particularly anti-war ones.

      by Boris Godunov on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM PDT

  •  For me it does.

    That magazine is dead to me.  This is the type of thing that can actually affect elections. As far as I'm concerned, their editorial decision has put my kids' futures in jeopardy.

    by Dartagnan on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      Is the guidance that you give your children really so fragile that it can be undone by a magazine published by people you will never meet?

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM PDT

      •  My guidance

        will be of only limited utility compared to the horrors my children will have to endure if this  country is subjected to a McCain Presidency.  The ramifications of that go far beyond anything my "guidance" will remedy.

        by Dartagnan on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM PDT

        •  Then it's your job (and all of ours)

          to get out from behind our keyboards and go out there and help get Barack Obama elected. Write a check, register new voters, hold a rally, whatever.

          That's not the New Yorker's job. It's there to write (and draw) about what's happening around it, not to make sure any one candidate is, or isn't, elected.

          And we're not helping Obama one bit by sitting here complaining when we could be out there doing something real.

          by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM PDT

        •  I'm a father myself

          And McCain ain't gonna stop me from raising my kids right.

          by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

          •  Me too

            (baby droogie has a month on my new little peanut), and the best thing I can do for my new son and my almost-in-kindergarten daughter is to do whatever I can to make sure we don't have a McCain administration. I'm not depending on the New Yorker to make that or break that for me. That's my job, not David Remnick's.

            (Though, on the whole, I have to believe that Remnick has done a lot that will work against McCain in the long run, too.)

            by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM PDT

          •  I'm talking about the air they breathe

            and the chemicals they absorb. And the economy they have to face.  And the regime they have to live under.  Not how they're raised.

            by Dartagnan on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

            •  asdf

              How they are raised has everything to do with how they face up to the problems that get in their way -- whether they're acts of God or the direct results of a corrupt government.

              by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM PDT

              •  Of course but you're talking about something else

                I said that the New Yorker's decision to do what it did has put my kids' future in jeopardy, and it has, by reinforcing stereotypes against Obama in the minds of millions of uncommitted, unthoughtful voters who don't "get" the satire. That helps McCain, ergo it puts my kids' future at risk, which I consider good cause for boycotting the magazine.  You replied that this decision on my part somehow implicated the degree to which I had faith in my ability to raise my kids.  It has nothing to do with that. My faith in my ability to raise my kids is unaffected by these events. The challenges they will have to face, in light of a McCain Presidency, are what I am concerned about.  That is what puts their future in jeopardy.  Boycotting the magazine is my personal decision, just like the idiot who made the personal decision to run this cover and put my kids' future in jeopardy.  I'm very angry at them, and I want them to know it, in a way that is meaningful.

                There are plenty of good writers who don't write in the New Yorker, and there are plenty of good magazines who don't make idiotic decisions like this one did. I guess I'll just have to be content with those.

                by Dartagnan on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM PDT

                •  yes, it hurts all kids

                  it hurt in the forties and fifties when it was common and we all joined to fight back and it hurts all kids now when we thought a post-racism was taking hold and this shit was dead in decent company.

                  by cacamp on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

    •  wow, then you've got alot to boycot

      companies out there do worse than this all the time; go see a Disney movie?  Look at the trash ABC spews out every day.  That's just for starters... pick any random company, and they've done much much worse.   Where you going to get your gasoline, heating oil, electricity, phone, and .... chinese clothes?

      This ranting about the New Yorker is absurd.  Instead of posting here, you should be writing letters to the editor that point out the raw truth in the front cover -- racism and hatred on the right is just out of control.

      by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

      •  I forget who said it, but...

        ... the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

        by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM PDT

      •  And for all the bad Disney has done...

        ...they also just gave us WALL-E, which is a brilliant (and I mean brilliant) environmentalist and anti-consumerist screed packaged in the seemingly harmless skin of a children's movie.

        Go see it if you haven't.

        by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM PDT

    •  OMG, words can affect elections?

      There was a time in America when the purpose of a good magazine was just that. And no, I don't want my New Yorker to be dedicated to the cause of electing Barack Obama any more than I want my cable news to be dedicated to the cause of electing John McCain.

      by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM PDT

      •  I'm grateful so many have such time

        and inclination for equanimity and consideration.

        I simply don't.

        by Dartagnan on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM PDT

        •  Yet you...

          (and by "you" I mean all of us who are flooding these threads with comments, not Dartagnan specifically) seem to have plenty of time to sit here and attack the New Yorker under the misguided idea that it's supposed to be working actively for the election of our candidate.

          WE are the ones who are supposed to be working actively for the election of our candidate, and yet again we're letting ourselves get worked up about something 99% of Americans won't ever even hear about, when there are real issues and real candidates who need our time and our money.

          by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM PDT

    •  This is the very definition of hysteria.

      It's a magazine.  And not a very widely-read one compared to ones like Time, Newsweek, etc.  Getting hysterical over this is a wasted effort.  Let. it. go.

      by Boris Godunov on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM PDT

  •  If I were going to boycott

    the New Yorker, I would've done so when Remnick wrote an editorial softly supporting the invasion of Iraq.

    I understand why the cover pisses people off, but it's obvious satire, a visual representation of comments you see everyday at Kos, as in, "well we all know Obama is a Muslim terrorist-loving..." A awkward attempt to poke fun at the absurdity of the smears, but the drumbeat of outrage here, I have to say, make us look ridiculous.

    by david mizner on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM PDT

  •  Repub cover = satire; Dem cover = racism

    I can go and look at all of my back issues, but somehow I think the NYKer has managed to "cover" the entire spectrum.

    Funny how all the critics around here only get their sanctimonious hackles up when its our guy.

    by NYContrarian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM PDT

•  I wont boycott but I do pray they go broke so

  their irresponsible ways are never replicated

  by DFutureIsNow on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM PDT

  •  Okay

    Have you ever actually read the New Yorker?

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM PDT

    •  Yes. And it really does not make it any easier

      to say what I said but I mean every word of it. I wish it was the Weekly Standard instead so I could really get rid of all the anger I'm feeling right now.

      by DFutureIsNow on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM PDT

  •  Praying doesn't work unless

    you self-flaggelate.

    by ben masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM PDT

    •  Three times a day with the whip . . . . n/t

      by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM PDT

  •  the New Yorker

    is a historic short story magazine, one of the very last major ones in existence, it would be a tragedy if they went under and quit publishing their fine literature and commentary.

    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM PDT

  •  Well, since prayer doesn't work . . .

    that sounds okay to me.

    by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM PDT

•  I will boycott. Cancel my subscription!

  by Dave G on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM PDT

  •  do you ahve one

    last night you didn't even seem to know what the New yorker does, which is publish short stories and poetry. I'm thinking about scrounging up the extra money to buy a subscription to cancel out your canceling, if you have one that is. I think I'll go get one right now.

    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM PDT

•  You know what'll be funny...

  ... is when the wingers start using the NY cover as their Facebook profile pics, not realizing that the joke was always about them.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM PDT

  •  Dude!!

    I can't wait :-)

    Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

    by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

•  I guess I've been inadvertently boycotting

  my entire life.  I don't subscribe.  /shrug

  by browneyes on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM PDT

  •  You've been missing a lot of good stuff

    The great thing about a great magazine is that it can present well-written (or -drawn) pieces that open one's eyes to a different way of looking at the world.

    You don't find that very often in the blogosphere, even here among some of the smartest and wittiest folks ever to occupy a keyboard.

    I think that's one of the failings of today's blog-centric view of the world, and to dismiss so much good and interesting content with "shrug" says more than you may realize.

    by ipsos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM PDT

    •  Exactly, if it wasn't for The New Yorker

      I wouldn't know that leeches are FDA approved medical devices - I now save thousands on my medical bills annually, and best of all I can give a big FU to Big Pharma.

      by Roadbed Guy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM PDT

      •  Altho I refuse to pay New York prices

        for leeches . . . .

        by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM PDT

        •  Hmm, us backwoods types just scoop

          'em out of the swamp and make the big bucks selling them to the big city suckers (pun intended?) . . .

          by Roadbed Guy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM PDT

•  Oh sure

  and weaken one of the few publications brave enough to tell truth to power (and to us as well).

  If you boycott every publication, network web site etc. that once in a while publishes something that irks you, well you might as well go live in a cave.

  Engagement is the solution not withdrawal.

  by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    But they drew a cartoon. In a magazine.

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM PDT

    •  Good thing they do put a picture of the Prophet

      over the mantle piece. Can you imagine the uproar?

      by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:06 PM PDT

      •  .. they DIDN'T put ...

        I can't type. I am boycotting my fingers

        by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM PDT

        •  "boycotting my fingers"

          Funny!

          I'm a writer, and I often feel like my fingers are boycotting me.

          by JoeW on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

    •  droogie,

      love your comments throughout this thread.

      How's the baby?

      by JoeW on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

      •  Sleeping more

        Which is good.

        Last night I figured out the secret to putting him down. 30 minutes of rocking, followed by the pacifier, and position him on his side.

        by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

  •  BOYCOTTT CABLE!

    They pay the Colbert Reports, which gives right wingers a mouth piece. They pay the O'Reilly report, and the pay south park, which derides Democrats and what we stand for! We shall not stand for this, it is time to boycott everything that offends us, and it's time to find everything offensive. Boycott gas because of Iraq, Boycott hollywood, boycott glade scented stuff because they offen us by only selling to woman and deriding woman by using the housewife stereotype. Boycott, boycott, boycott.

    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM PDT

    •  Boycott Earth!!

      I hear people get killed by animals, freeze to death in cold weather and drown in water.

      Damn, Nazi Earth!

      by JohnGor0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM PDT

      •  Earth? What about the cold, cruel Universe???

        Just tell me one thing the Universe has done for me lately!!

        by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM PDT

        •  Ah! Why stop there? There's the Multiverse

          Down with all Universes!

          by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM PDT

          •  And all the dimensions of string theory . . .

            they're all bastards!!!!  Do you know HOW MUCH THOSE BOSONS PISS ME OFF?????

            by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM PDT

            •  I'm especially P.O.'d at neutrinos.

              I hate particles I can't visualize.

              by JoeW on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM PDT

              •  screw

                neutrinos, what about the fucking quarks. Elitist particles, they're too good too exist in just one universe. I hate the stupid pompous bastards. Down with quarks, I hate particles that can't make up their mind what universe they want to exist in.

                by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM PDT

                •  Yeah and what about that "spin" thing?

                  As if there's not enough spin out there already.

                  I am boycotting anything made up of elementary particles!

                  by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

                  •  they're flip floppers

                    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM PDT

                  •  damn pansies!

                    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:49 PM PDT

                  •  SPIN ON THIS, QUARK-BOY!! n/t

                    by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM PDT

                •  Yeah, quarks and their fucking flavors . . .

                  they're so goddam conceited, like its all about THEM!!!

                  by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

            •  You boson! (Hey I like the ring of it)

              by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM PDT

            •  I hate dark matter!

              Why is it so dark?  And why is there so much of it?  And why does it keep telling Karl Rove he can ignore subpoenas?

              by beagledad on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:56:02 PM PDT

              •  Is that a racist remark? Just asking.

                by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:10:28 PM PDT

                •  I know. Let's build a wall!

                  To keep the dark matter from entering America.

                  by nailmaker on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

              •  Astronomy Lab Story

                Back when I was in college, the Astronomy department put up a "Suggestions and Complaints" box in their basement corridor that ran past the various Astronomy classrooms.

                Bored out of my skull one evening, I took a piece of paper and wrote on it, in forceful block letters, "I DON'T LIKE THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT," and put it in the box.

                I liked the thought of whichever TA had the job of going through the complaints trying to figure out what I expected them to do about it.

                by Ray Radlein on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM PDT

    •  Yes, that Cold Bear report

      as my five year old nephew calls it, really gets my goat.

      It's non-stop neo-con propaganda.  I'm sure they'll be prominently featuring this awful monstronsity from the New Yorker, sigh.  It seems like we just hand them all the ammunition they need to shoot us in the foot.  Except,  we've already shot ourselves in the head so in reality that doesn't really even matter . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM PDT

•  chek out my diary

  The New Yorker, the real problem, it's further down the list.

  Their is nothing racist about it. It's not mocking the Obama's for being black, therefore it's nto a minstrel show and it's not racsit. It's mocking all the things that have been said about the Obama's, it derides them through ridicule, by drawing out there caricature of the obama's with great hyperbole. I laid this out in so much detail. Choose to let yourself be offended by the slightest thing, choose to walk on egg shells, or be like me, and choose to let nothing in the world, not even south park, offend you. I laugh at everything, because laughter is the greatest weapon, you can't fight humour.

  by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM PDT

  •  I choose to be like ArkDem

    but taller.

    by JohnGor0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM PDT

    •  I'm offended

      I'm going to boycott you sir.

      by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM PDT

      •  You have to subscribe to me first

        I'm $39.99 a year for 50 issues. I start sending renewal forms before you even get to the mailbox.

        by JohnGor0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM PDT

        •  That'll be the day!!! n/t

          by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM PDT

  •  Monument for People Who Have Been Offended

    During the Clinton Administration, someone suggested building a monument dedicated to "People Who Have Been Offended by Something".

    Unfortunately, some people were offended by the idea of such a monument, so the idea was dropped.

    [I think this was in the Washington Post Style Invitational.]

    by Caelian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM PDT

    •  LOL! n/t

      by JoeW on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM PDT

•  Yes -- only read things you 100% agree with.

  I thought the cover showed remarkably bad judgement.  But the New Yorker has done some of the best anti-Bush commentary and journalism of the past several years -- Sy Hersh alone is a one-man army in the struggle to reestablish sanity in Washington.  So no, I won't be boycotting the New Yorker -- and I think the suggestion that I should is silly.

  by Finck II on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:35:27 PM PDT

  •  Huh. How about if they had a cover showing

    Olmert eating dead Palestinian babies? Would that do it? Or Lieberman and Haddassah gussied up as JDL terrorists, executing Lebanese civilians?

    The quality of the magazine just makes the cover even worse and the situation more depressing. There should be a concerted action against the magazine until Remnick is fired.

    Also, Remnick has promoted a decidedly pro-Hillary stance throughout the primaries. But that's another matter. No editor should be able to get away with this filthy racist propaganda.

    by LongTom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM PDT

    •  Why not Hitler being crucified!!!

      That'd be equating Jesus and Adolf!!

      I'M OFFENDED!~~!!

      by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM PDT

    •  Longtom, your comparison is dumb -- and creepy

      First, I made clear in my first sentence I did not approve of the cover -- I just question the wisdom of a boycott as a response to it.  Indeed, since you suggest the firing of Remnick, I gather you aren't entirely sold on the idea of a boycott either, at least not an open ended one intended to drive a strongly anti-Bush  magazine out of business.

      Second, your two hypotheticals are over-the-top to
      the point of absurdity, indeed almost to the point of dementia.  As bad as the cover is, the New Yorker did NOT depict the Obamas eating babies and executing civilians -- therefore my reaction to such covers is moot. The New Yorker would never run them.

      Finally -- and this is the truly disturbing part -- why do you use as your hypothetical cover images of prominent Jews committing atrocities?  Is your assumption that I would have one standard for outrageous portraits of African-Americans and another for outrageous portraits of Jewish Americans? If so, on what do you base that assumption?  The fact that I am Jewish and therefore you feel it follows that I would have such a double standard?  Or am I reading too much into this -- perhaps you just wanted to post lurid descriptions of Jews eating dead babies, etc.  Whatever -- it is apparent that the folks at the New Yorker aren't the only ones who should take a good long look at their motivations.

      by Finck II on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM PDT

      •  thank you

        by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

      •  What's so bad about eating babies?

        Isnt' that exactly what Jonahtan Swift advocated in his Modest Proposal?????

        by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM PDT

  •  I work 3 jobs and subscribe to everything

    that gives me leverage when a magazine pans "Hellboy II".

    by JohnGor0 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM PDT

    •  loved Hellboy II

      But now that I think about it, it's unfair to Forest Elementals.

      Can you do a retoractive boycott?

      by JoeW on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM PDT

•  Clueless.

  I've about had it up to here with the self-righteous piety of those that just don't get it.
  This cover will wind up helping Obama in the long run.  Chill out.

  by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM PDT

  •  exactly,

    i laid out how and why in my diary, he just has to take the opportunity.

    by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM PDT

  •  The cover is racist propaganda. Put you and your

    wife in the picture instead of Barack and Michelle. would you like to see that spread around your neighborhood?

    I don't see how it "helps Obama." Maybe it will, but through no fault of the New Yorker. But there's no question that it is a visual incitement to every racist nut in the US. They look at this and say: "Right! Obama must be stopped from defiling the Oval Office like that!"

    The picture is an incitement to hatred and violence, and legitimizes what is essentially racist porno. Hard to see how that helps.

    by LongTom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM PDT

    •  Man, I would LOVE for me and my wife

      to be on the fucking cover of the New Yorker portrayed as Islamic Terrorists!!  She would be STYLING with that Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года; Avtomat Kalashnikova obraztsa 1947 goda,  and I would be double-pimping that turban.

      Altho I think I would insist upon some of those MC Hammer Parachute Pants!!!

      Can you set that up before you cancel your subscription??? I'd owe ya one, dude.

      by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      I'd love it if my wife had the old '70s fro happening. I remember those. They were cool. Tough with hats though.

      by pletzs on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM PDT

    •  I'd find it funny

      the best quality to have is the ability to poke fun at yourself and laugh at your self. I OCD son of a bitch. Hah. I'm a fucking elitist liberal who's going to hell. Hah.

      by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

    •  Good God, an incitement to hatred and violence.

      I am glad I don't have to live on your planet.

      Lester Maddox with an axe handle incites hatred and violence. This is a NYer cartoon.

      by crankyinNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:31:49 PM PDT

  •  Yeah I get it

    The most gifted black politician of an age gets boiled down to the most base and ugly stereotypes.  Gets those stereotypes magnified and unexplained, and gets them published and blasted across the world.  Haha wait not funny.

    by Adept2u on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM PDT

    •  Uh

      That happens to everyone who's ever run for president on a major party ticket.

      by pletzs on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM PDT

    •  pictographisc

      satire doesn't explain things. It so plainly derides the rumours by showing how ridiculous they all look together, the American flag in the fire palce and the AK-47 were nice touches. It shows, through hyperbole and absurdity, the ridiculusness of those very right wing claims.

      by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM PDT

      •  strange to me it looks like

        an over the top hyperbole of every stereotype leveled agains barack and invents new ones about Michelle without any context.  

        by Adept2u on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:36:59 PM PDT

        •  actually, they've

          been trying to harpoon her in chain emails, making up a whitey comment, the I've never been proud of america mishap, they've been trying to turn michelle obama into the stereotyped angry black woman, and that's the context for that part of the cover. And, you've isolated why it's funny, it's an over the top hyperbole of every claim against obama, and the result is so absurd it's funny and that was original intent.

          by ArkDem14 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM PDT

          •  Hehe i guess the road to hell really is paved

            with good intentions.  I thought I'd grow thicker skin for this election cycle cause I knew it was going to be hard on black americans.  I was fully expecting Willie Horton at anytime.  He came through our door though, and he came through wearing good intentions.

            by Adept2u on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM PDT

  •  One hundred billion recs!

    If instead of the knee-jerk boycott/fire/show trial feedback loop:

    What if everyone on our side confidentally said, "hey look at this cover, it depicts the idiot RW fantasy" and used it then as a point of departure to fight back against the RW, well it would be subversive and successful.

    But the usual accusers have lined up the usual suspects. So the story will become how the blogs are pissed at the NYer (which will have the curious effect
    of leading the MSM to ask "have they hit a nerve" -- meaning perhaps it is somewhat true).

    Lost opportunity lunkheads.

    Typical.

    by crankyinNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM PDT

•  lighten up.

  If you read the New Yorker, you'd know that their covers are always absurd, satircal or ironic. I understand the Obama campaign's need to comment on this, but it's better to have this stuff out in the open. My wife and I have both received forwarded copies of this:

  http://www.snopes.com/...

  in emails from relatives in Texas this weekend, and they don't know that it's not true. Let's talk about this stuff and refute it all loudly and publicly.

  billvb

  by billvb on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM PDT

  •  And you think this cover HELPS refute other

    racist propaganda? That's absurd.The cover legitimizes it. This is America's "best magazine." it'sprofoundly depressing to see this on its cover. What would you think if thismimage were on the cover of the National Review?

    by LongTom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM PDT

    •  If my Aunt had balls . . .

      she'd be my Uncle.

      by bobdevo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM PDT

      • <