Last night, the interwebs were all abuzz with news of the most recent New Yorker cover. Generally, left-wing bloggers appear pretty outraged: 
There’s no other ulterior motive to publish cartoons like this right? …This is disgusting. Might be worth canceling a subscription or two. [Daily Kos]… so singularly out of touch … It may not be unusual for Upper East-Side liberals that a half-black man with an African father and Hussein for a middle name … might ascend to the presidency, but to some Americans IT IS EVERYTHING. [TPM]
While I was alarmed at first, the image grew on me as satire. It’s a veritable Where’s Waldo compendium of right-wing fears about the Obama candidacy:
- Michelle Obama as old American black nationalism allied with …
- Barack Obama as the purported American who is still loyal to his immigrant roots
- The alliance between them represented by the “terrorist fist-jab”
- Washington’s replacement by Osama Bin Laden in the painting over the mantel (OMG OBL Booga Booga!)
- Patriotism discarded, as shown by the flag in the fireplace
As I see it, the cartoon intends to show just how absurd people’s fears are: fears of foreigners as fifth columnists, fears that men who wear turbans (even if once, for a foreign photo-op) must be Muslims, and therefore unpatriotic. The cartoon makes these images concrete and then laughs at them, like a riddikulus spell against a boggart.
This approach is one I take with kids, who are both fascinated and afraid of me. When a five year old whispers loudly to his mother “Hey look Ma! A genie!” I turn around and offer the kid three wishes. This confuses them because they know that genies aren’t real, and it breaks through the wall between us. When 10 year olds say to each other “look out, he’s got a bomb!” I look at them and go “Boom!” More often than not, they laugh in response.
The problem is, it doesn’t work with grown-ups, who generally take themselves far more seriously then kids do. The kinds of people who have these fears are also generally deaf to irony.
I don’t think this cartoon will change people’s minds, nor do I think it’s trying to. It’s more like an episode of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, something that mocks narrow-minded knee-jerk bigotry by pretending to take it seriously. If it makes you either squirm or laugh, it has done its job.
UPDATE Here’s the New Yorker’s explanation of what they were trying to do (thanks reader):
In a statement, The New Yorker magazine said the cartoon “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.” The New Yorker said the cover, called “The Politics of Fear”, was a critique of unfounded allegations that have tried to portray Mr Obama, a Christian, as a closet radical Muslim. “The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” the statement said. [BBC]
100 · umber desi said
I don’t know about that, but I do know that I’m bored of this culture which dumbs everything down for the lowest common denominator rather than attempting to challenge people’s intellect, and I’m bored of politicians who take a certain number of voters for granted and court only the morons who are still “weighing the options.” Arianna Huffington’s got some good advice for Obama, methinks. There’s an article in today’s NYT about the dearth of jokes about Obama, too.
I have no idea what to make it you are right Obama and his people could have laughed it off. I also think it is getting extra visibility because of people dissecting it overtime. I agree with you about lack of jokes about Obama, everyone seems extra cautious about saying something that may be construed racist.
Of course I would shake it off, Dilettante. Why wouldn’t I? What kind of person gets upset over a stupid question.
Oh, yeah.
The people I work with are smart, tough, and more than able to take care of themselves. They have better things to do than worry about whatever stupid comment I might make and they’d have no problem telling me to stuff it if I were inappropriate. They aren’t children and they aren’t dullards. I think they can handle it.
Oh, and I guess my above comment goes for the cover of the New Yorker, too 🙂 People are smarter than they are given credit for being (I so have to take some basic writing courses) by the overlords of the intellectual and political elite…..
I’m going back to my new blog, now: The Diary of Obama’s Mirror. And McCain’s temper.
First Entry:
Obama’s mirror: Have you seen that New Yorker cover? Ridiculous. Why would anyone draw a picture of Barack Obama when he is such a photogenic man! Phots, people, only photos do him justice. And that drawing! Outrageous. It actually had Barack’s back to the cover! I mean, he is so good looking, how could you have his back to the cover?
McCain’s temper: My friends, this is not the type of respectful campaign I am interested in running. I mean, I, uh, it’s just, not….IMEANWHATTHEHECKAREYOUDOING, NEWYORKER? EVERYONE’S GONNA BLAME IT ON THE AGENTS OF INTOLERANCE IN MY PAAARTYYYY AAAARRRRGH!
People are smarter than they are given credit for being (I so have to take some basic writing courses) by the overlords of the intellectual and political elite…..
which is why on 60 mins, when some dumb hick in ohio was being interviewed, he said, “I have some problems with Obama because of his Islamic faith”
and the 60 mins interviewer says, “He’s Christian you know.”
Good thing that dumb hick (why do we even let them vote?) had an overlord around to correct him.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the Adlai Stevenson tree, does it? You know the quote I’m referring to….
12% of those surveyed said they thought that Obama had sworn his oath of office when joining the Senate on the Koran. You’d think that with all the time and effort devoted to discussing Jeremiah Wright that there would be no reason for anybody to believe this …
Good thing that dumb hick (why do we even let them vote?)
So they don’t get drunk for at least 1 tuesday night out of the year.
I saw something similar on CNN last weekend. I reporter was traveling around the country trying to talk to “regular folks” about the election. he stopped at a minor league baseball game and met a woman who said, “I’m not going to vote for the democratic nominee this year ’cause he is an Islamic Muslim” she then told the reporter to talk to her friend in the stands “who knows a lot about politics”. This friend then proceeded to say things like “the only black man with change I’ve seen was holding a cup”.
Now maybe these are not the people that the new yorker would appeal to but I have no question that they would gladly buy the magazine and put up the image and embrace it out of context. For them it is a vindication of their thoughts and they won’t go into the elements of irony or satire that it is meant to bring up. I know there are a few postings on the fox message boards that have said that precisely. Even the liberals in New York agree with us … context be damned.
12% of those surveyed said they thought that Obama had sworn his oath of office when joining the Senate on the Koran
Wasn’t there a senator or governor who did actually do that? But what the average white brain thinks, “dark skinned person – koran – swearing” –> “Obama swore in on the Koran!”
You go girl! Good for your co-workers. Interesting that you characterize your own questions as racist and stupid. I wouldn’t have said it, but I do sometimes wonder about people, who appear to have have access to satellite TV, the Internet, Borders bookstores, free public libraries etc. who like to single out (N=1) co-workers to ask these chuckle worthy type of questions. go figure.
Manju that’s funny. I thought his vote against us going there in the first place + calls for troop drawdowns, and a timeline argued just the opposite. Malaki wants a timeline,doesn’t seem that McCain wants to actually hear that.
But he’s already way too country club cool, a veritable snob even. I think a lot of people are discombulated now over class/race/religion (somewhat) and identity, and yes it’s a problem now for late night talk show hosts. cry me a river 😉
I know there are a few postings on the fox message boards that have said that precisely. Even the liberals in New York agree with us … context be damned.
Exactly, it’s not unsimilar to when the onion published an article about “Gay conversions going up” and some redneck pastor out in bumblef*ck jerkwater no place posted it on his website with , “See? I was right”
110 · HMF said
hmf, you know i love you and your fellow members in SM’s axis-of-hysteria; prema and pardesi gori; but isn’t it obvious that if you where correct about the average white brain we wouldn’t be having this convo in the first place.
sure the gist of what you guys write are fairly accurate stereotypes, presented in an absolutist, unhinged and unnuanced way…like prema’s conception of india as a color obsessed brahman supremacist land of wretched poverty, to PGs small penised beta like misogynistic buttock grabbing indian male, to your high heeled women complaining about the social construction of the patriarchy while looking for a human atm to marry.
but just like prema has a problem with the obvious success of india’s free market revolution, you seem to have a hard time dealing with the reality of obama. not that what you say is false, just that they’re half-truths, oblivious to increasingly dominant counter-narratives. admit it, you were gobsmacked by his rise and now suffer from cognitive dissonance.
rednecked bumblef*cks got nothing compared to these post-modernist bozos. bet they live on the UWS and read the New Yorker.
you seem to have a hard time dealing with the reality of obama. not that what you say is false, just that they’re half-truths, oblivious to increasingly dominant counter-narratives. admit it, you were gobsmacked by his rise and now suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I will admit, I was genuinely surprised by the Iowa primary results. notice, only then did the African-American majority come out and vocally support him, to do so earlier wouldn’t be prudent. See that’s the reality of white privilege, you get to believe things will work your way, because generally, they do.
Now, I have no clue what you mean by “the reality of obama” if he’s some kind of indicator that racism is no longer a significant force in the us, I’d say you need to open your eyes and stop worrying about who you love and who you don’t
In fact, the discussion we’re having is precisely DUE to the existence of racism + ignorance still in the American masses, otherwise, if the satire and joke is easily gotten, there’d be no contention regarding the cover.
109 · linus said
So what if they do? Those kind of ingrates are going to find ways to feed their beliefs no matter what you, I, or the New Yorker chooses to do. There’s an entire industry dedicated to reassuring them that their irrational fears and prejudices are justified, and self-censoring out of fear of it is about the worst possible reaction I can imagine. Particularly when the topic in question is exactly the lunacy of the Idiot Voter. This is one of those rare elections when the stupid bigots are going to end up marginalized, so let’s please not spoil that by catering to them now. There’ll be plenty of time to worry about placating them once Obama is in office.
The only time satire is inappropriate is when the wrongs being satirized are so grevious that they demand outright condemnation (this would be stuff like genocide, torture or the later Star Wars films). In this case, however, the people who don’t get it are simply stupid, and the people who get it but cringe simply don’t have the nuts to edit an influential magazine.
Or maybe there is a third option where the satire is not effective or biting enough to the people that they are trying to satirize. This leaves the door open to all types of interpretations, including misinterpretations. Just because it’s claiming to be satire does not mean it is not open to criticism whether it’s effective satire.
116 · redr said
Yup. Furthermore, we’re discussing a phenomenon that’s only just a few days old. I bet that over time more of “them” will understand that it’s really they who are the butt of this joke.
Amen. Thank you.
HMF, how are you able to live in this evil racist country that is America. I’m really worried about your health, and all this stress that you have to deal being a poor innocent brown man living among the evil stupid land full of white racist hicks.
Just image how much stress free you life would be in place like India that does not have racism and everybody is treated the same. Plus there a very few evil white people there. Why did someone in your family decide to come this hellhole that is the United States of white privilege.
You struggle against white privilege is an amazing story, and hopefully one day your name will be up there with the likes of Dr.King and Gandhi.
115 · HMF said
i guess what i find creepy about the cover is that is has the faint stench of a fake hate crime, meant to intentionally raise the anxiety level of the very communities the prankster claims to protect, like this sorry incident.
i mean, the most prominent examples of racism and xenophobia come from the dem side, which makes the new yorker a problematic platform for such satire. the internets are a cesspool and a low hanging fruit not worth the trouble of a cover.
progressives have been sittng around waiting for the VRWC to smear obama with a new race-coded southern strategy. but so far, not much except from the cesspools and an occasional foxnews blunder. Johnathan Martin reports that anti-obama 527’s are non-existent, as the backers of the swift-boats for example have decided to sit this one out. neo-cons like francis fukuyama have endorsed him and its been reported black conservatives are leaning that way too. he’s leading in every poll too.
so what do liberals do? racist democrat larry johnson starts a rumor about michelle obama, presumably to scare superdels who where about to close the deal for obama. another dem, bob beckel, repeats the lie while national review and reason mag actually debunk the rumor. as no good deed goes unpunished, the msm falsely reports the rumor as a republican smear. wtf?
meanwhile, liberal blogs like pandagon, feministing, and feminste repeat the smear that mccain called his wife a c–-t, a sort of gendered reverse-southern strategy meant to ensure clinton supporters don’t bolt to mccain. virtually all the obama smears–drug dealer, madrassa, secret muslim, and whitey–can be traced to clinton camp and other dems, and the worst anti-muslin xenophobia of the campaign, telling hijab wearers to go away, actually comes from obama’s side, of all places.
progressives are just fanning the flames, desperate to keep bigotry alive. weird times indeed.
You struggle against white privilege is an amazing story, and hopefully one day your name will be up there with the likes of Dr.King and Gandhi.
I’d like you show me how my pov differs from say Dr. King, since you brought him up? Instead of reading my posts, you choose to exaggerate and sarcastically represent them, which is fine (trite and unfunny) but fine, but don’t expect to come of as a serious debater of any issue when you do so.
I don’t believe white racism is a biological byproduct, endemic to their , rather a social one, racists raise racists, just they figure out better ways to cloak it. one that has continued unchecked because the white majority has refused to face itself, (and not to mention all the help he’s getting from folks like yourself)
So tell me, do you degrade Dr. King and Gandhi for forcing change in their respective lands? If Dr. King were here, would he think everything’s honky dory and call for those who wish to truly end racism to pack up and go home. Remove your head from your ass as you read this, choose to put it back when done, if you want.
Oh Dilettante – how do you know I singled out anyone? Perhaps I talked to a friend the way I talk here at SM. We have conversations about all kinds of stuff and I just wanted to know what a friend thought about an intellectual question? Oh, wait, only people here at SM have these sorts of enlightened conversations, correct? True, I tacked on the racist stuff, myself, but I was extrapolating and interested in a friend’s opinion. Okay, I knew I’d get an eyeroll, so I stacked the deck.
I know what you’re trying to do and it won’t work.
The world is complicated and not everyone looks at their own lot in life and sees only victimhood. Sad how some (I use the weasel word ‘some’ to create a strawman) luxuriate in thoughts of how wicked is the world! I see this on both the right and the left. It’s as if every negative, every disaster, confirms their deepest, happiest thought: see, the world is a horrible place and I am correct in every negative.
Fine. It often is a wicked, wicked world, but, there’s good too, and not all the good is coming out of the enlightened corners of academe. Why, I dare say, the little people, the hicks, and the stumblers and bumblers may humble you in their good deeds. You’d be surprised.
You go girl, huh? Right back at ya’.
Ennis cant see through the ideological blinders. It doesnt matter if the picture is in New Yorker, National review or weekly standard. new yorker is jewish liberla magazine and NR and weekly standard are jewish neocon magazines. Supporters of Israel do not want an American president who is neutral on the israel palestine issue.
117 · linus said
And just because some anecdotal hick somewhere may theoretically not have gotten the point doesn’t mean it’s not effective satire. It’s certainly not the greatest piece of satire I’ve ever seen, but it seems pretty absurd to demand that a New Yorker cover needs to come across to bigotted hicks that would never in a million years pick up a copy of the New Yorker in order to be considered “effective.” Are debates about this topic not raging all over the media as we speak? Type “satire” into Google and see what the first news result that comes up is. I could just as well argue that a more obvious, “pointed” satire (such as making it a thought balloon on a redneck, as has been suggested) would have generated far less interest, and so been far less effective. This thing, on the other hand, seems to be snowballing, and every time it’s reported on, that many more people make the link “thinking Obama is a Muslim = you’re an idiot.” Even if the people who actually think he’s a Muslim aren’t convinced, it’s creating an atmosphere where they know they’ll look like fools if they voice any such thoughts.
At the very least, it’s presumptuous to argue that it’s ineffective when the effects are still playing out.
121 · HMF said
well, king probably woundn’t refer to women as being drilled more than an oil rig, or refer to even racists as hicks, rednecks, or bumblefucks…and its not just a matter of style.
I guess it was something about the word one, and the expression N=1 that lead me to jump to the phrase “single out”. So the gal at work is also your friend,not just a co-worker. She keeps you in check so you don’t wonder off into white centric, racist offensive territory (your words) Cool! Do you provide the same service to a her and other white/latino/Korean etc gals/guys to keep them from verring off into smiliar orientalist terrority with Desi’s the’ve just met? I mean there’s PC ,and sometimes there’s just a “no home training”,ignorance that should be avoided.
Honestly I was just replying to the things you wrote, no psychic powers here. I’m a christian 😉
Well, you’ve just scored an irrelevant blog comment trifecta of some sort,dragging in the terms racism, stupidity and victimhood. Go you!
I’m not arguing that just because an anecdotal hick didn’t get it is it’s not effective satire. Look I’ll come at it from a different pov. If a piece of editorial writing comes up people make judgments and criticisms on if it is trying to communicate an idea effectively. If there is ambiguity as to it’s impact both in it’s form and function to a large number of people then the editorial writer has not achieve his or her intent. I’m not advocating a solution to it’s ineffectiveness just that like books, art, movies we are free to comment critically on if a political cartoon is effective or not. I don’t think we need to wait over time to see if it is effective or not, political cartoons are by their nature about communicating an idea quickly and to the point which was I think the intent here, it’s just that the idea came out somewhat muddled and that is why you have this discussion.
I finally picked up the New Yorker and saw the picture.
Definition of Satire according to the Merriam Webster: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. It is my understanding that the editors of the New Yorker were trying to satirize the right wing rumor mongers for their ridiculousness and not satirize the Obamas.This cartoon has done neither. There is not any evidence of the right wing rumor mongers themselves (e.i. Fox news)but just the rumors themselves, which is why I think there is so much confusion and debate. I think it would have been a far more powerful image if the satire was about the subject and not subject’s subject.
Why it doesn’t work as satire? Already said, but, needs to be said again: because it’s a left wing idea of what the left thinks the right thinks. While there might be a small portion of the right that thinks in those terms, the main reason the right doesn’t like Obama is, before his confusing drive to the center, he portrayed himself as a doctrinaire liberal underneath the glorious rhetoric. He could be Waspy Wasperson from Wasp Village Connecticut, have the same views, and still be derided by the right.
The New Yorker meant to satirize the right, but ended up satirizing their own idea of the right. See hick, bumblef*ck, etc references in Manju’s post above.
hmm. We dont have blacks here – unless if you are talking about Aboriginals. However Aborigials are to be compared to native americans not blacks. Is Australia ready for an Prime Minister of Italian / Indian / Chinese heritage – yes. hmm we have a pseudo chinese one. Imagine a Chinese speaking President of the USA….
We already had one. The first President Bush spoke Chinese.
But, your point is well taken. You are better than us. Got it.
Oops, I forgot. Cronulla riots, 2005.
Okay, I’m done now!
(And for the record, I don’t think Australia is a uniquely racist country anymore than the United States is a uniquely racist country).
127 · linus said
And where is this “large number of people?” I’ve heard a lot of speculation that people didn’t “get it,” but I have yet to encounter any of this great unwashed mass of idiots whose incomprehension underpins all the complaints.
This discussion wherein everyone was crystal-clear on the intended idea from the very beginning, but is paranoid that some unnamed person somewhere else wasn’t? No, I think I’ll wait to see the herds of confused New Yorker readers before jumping on the armchair-quarterback bandwagon.
There’s also the point that the image engendered controversy not because it was confusing, but because it was shocking. Those are two very different things, with very different implications for its value as satire.
Also, MD and Jaya, it would be great if you could come up with arguments that don’t start by presuming to know what the author’s intent was. Or at least assume a plausible intent: lots of things are being satirized by the image, but the main one is the idea that Obama is Muslim/terrorist/etc. The presumption that they’re going after “The Right,” or even the right-wing rumor mill, is not justified. They’re implicated in the satire, of course, but let’s not miss the elephant in the room here, which is that these ideas are out there, and seem to have some traction in the minds of enough people to be worth worrying about.
Ugh, such lecturing and hectoring, redr. I’ll start the posts just the way you wish, teacher.
Kevin Drum at Atlantic Monthly said it only works as satire if there is a thought bubble with McCain next to it. manish at ultrabrown and other commenters above say the same thing. But they are not the editors, so, your point is well taken. Still, if it’s only one of the implications, doesn’t my point still stand? That there is an exaggerated sense on the left of the currency of this rumor on the right (as well as among the yokels in flyover)? Why wouldn’t that be part of what they are trying to satirize? I don’t get your objection. I’m saying, the currency of this type of thinking is exaggerated, Ennis’ poll above included.
I have to stop. I am back to the old ‘when I procrastinate, I blog comment’ time-suckage……
Editor of NY here.
You’re right, he says he’s just trying to debunk these rumors and I inserted NY editors when it should have been Left of center bloggers. Still, it’s not a hard mistake to make for a magazine that runs Seymour Hersch articles…..
well, king probably woundn’t refer to women as being drilled more than an oil rig, or refer to even racists as hicks, rednecks, or bumblefucks…and its not just a matter of style.
Those aren’t viewpoints, I was speaking about the viewpoints I have, in particular those about the general status of race relations, white privilege (a phenom you completely deny or minimize, yet claim ideological brotherhood with the good doctor)
referring to them as hicks, etc.. again, is not counteracting his viewpoint of elite whites hoodwinking poor whites into thinking they have more in common with them, than they do people of color who share the same economic class. Divide and conquer.
bumblefuck is a pseudonym for small town america, you claim to recognize satire when you see it. ?
Dil, keep fighting the good fight. UT’s are a formidable bunch.
135 · MD said
Could be; we really don’t have much way of knowing. I’ve had complete strangers make Obama/Osama jokes while I was small-talking with them, and I live on one of the coasts. And we keep hearing about how 1 in 10 Americans thinks Obama’s a Muslim. This meme is definitely out there.
They’re implicated in the satire, of course, but let’s not miss the elephant in the room here,
In a way it’s not unsimilar to the way Malcolm used to criticize the “northern white liberals” and saying they took high moral ground by relegating all the black man’s problems to the south. He said, he’ll agree the problem is in the south, if it meant south of the Canadian Border.
137 · HMF said
they’re signposts of viewpoints. An anti-racist wouldn’t call a black person a n—-r. King began by focused primarily on racism, but before too long intricately related this problem to militarism as well as economic exploitation and classism. I don’t necessarily agree with this link but I don’t see King using such coded words a “redneck.” You strike me as not only more classist, but more vengeful of the racists, something king warned against. your use of power theories of racism also enables you to stereotype whites in ways you’d never accept if the target where blacks. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out your departure from kings philosophy.
as for myself, i don’t consider king an ideological brother. i admire him to be sure and agree with his argument that racism is contradictory to the American creed, but from there we depart. I’m more in line with Malcolm X’s self-help philosophy than Kings reliance on government for liberation.
140 · Manju said
but malcolm’s not my brother either, i should say, except fot the fact that he was lean.
Can’t believe people are debating if it is satirical…it clearly is. Mrs. Obama is depicted as a hot/dangerous Pam Grier type, not Aunt Jemima. However, there is no doubt that it hurts the Obama team though…..there are no “inside jokes” anymore. This is why hipsters (who have a strong overlap with MFAs)are so damn annoying, they would rather be “precious” than win. Some of the more IQ challenged anti-semites thought Borat was a real fellow traveller. I’ve met people that thought Spinal Tap was a bona fide band. I’ve even met Ivy League educated people who had to go to snopes.com on the whole Hilfiger rumor when it was so obviously untrue.
I don’t necessarily agree with this link but I don’t see King using such coded words a “redneck.” You strike me as not only more classist, but more vengeful of the racists, something king warned against.
No king would not use the word ‘redneck’, but that doesn’t suggest a departure of viewpoint, only a choice in words.
your use of power theories of racism also enables you to stereotype whites in ways you’d never accept if the target where blacks
By that account, king also would “stereotype whites” as well.
I’m more in line with Malcolm X’s self-help philosophy than Kings reliance on government for liberation.
no you’re not, because Malcolm’s self-help philosphy was about forming completely independent entities. and breaking away totally from any of the bonds that had previously kept you down. Moreover, King was for the same level of black self-reliance. You create a distinction where it’s not there. Malcolm spoke out againt the government because he felt the american govt was endemicly racist, not because he believed in “no gov’t handouts”
i don’t care how profoundly satirical this cover was it wasn’t funny. couldn’t even emote a chuckle. shit needs to stop.
well hmf, re malcolm and martin there are things i agee with and things i don’t. either way, its been close to a 1/2 century since their heyday and its important to move on, lest we cling to our liberators like our sisters and vrothers before us clung to gandhi and nehru. times have changed. oprah is our leader now.
ok – now you have it backwards. Australia is far more racist in many respects than the USA. but First President Bush did not go speak in Chinese to win votes in USA, did he. Rudd did – although it is time to get rid of him. And as for Cronulla, think about King.
Note : Am a DBD who lived in Europe / USA and Australia. Finally settling in Australia. So heck yeah – Australia is a much better place to live and has got its act together especially on immigration.
Bush Sr. doesn’t even care about East Asian table manners
the reality of the supposed “reverse southern strategy”.
i love the innuendo laden line here – “virtually”, “can be traced back” blah blah blah, totally dismissing the long history of secret muslim being thrown out by the right wing attack dogs for a long time now. of course, if you capriciously prune all history till the point you define as the beginning, then nothing before that is relevant. and a meme picked up by a state republican committee the moment obama started winning primaries. mccain of course has washed his hands off any pac/527 sponsored ads that may or may not show up.
130 · melbourne desi said
Mate, I’ve seen some aboriginals that are darker than Mallus.
I’d settle for one that spoke English.
144 · sunzari said
So…anything that does not make you laugh needs to stop?
I thought it was hilarious, and I’m so glad that Candide, “A Modest Proposal,” and “Rape of the Lock” don’t come with stupid disclaimers or thought bubbles for the small-minded and humorously-challenged.
I need a new word for philistines that ain’t racist. Little help? Anybody? Professor Singh?
People who want to ban satire are just plain Juvenal.
(Harbeer has been studying and writing satire since the tender age of 14.)