By Selwyn Duke

By now, everybody knows about the New Yorker magazine cover portraying Barack Obama in Moslem garb and his wife as a terrorist with a machine gun slung over her shoulder.  The idea behind it was to satirize people on the right who may be characterizing the Obamas in such a light.

Personally, I think such an image would be more accurately labeled a caricature, as I suspect it reflects the Obamas’ hearts and souls.  And I suppose that’s what many of those upset about the cover fear, that people such as myself would use it to further stigmatize Mr. and Mrs. Change, Unity and Hope.  Well, I certainly would hope I could encourage people to change and exhibit unity in opposition to this socialist candidate.

On a different note, part of the reaction to the New Yorker cover is a great illustration of why the print media is dying.  Some are worrying that the controversial image may cost the magazine readers, which means they’re getting things completely backwards.  It is material such as this that attracts attention and captures readers; it doesn’t alienate them, generally speaking.   If anyone would doubt this, he should ponder the health of talk radio.  Why is it flourishing?  Sure, it balances the leftist mainstream media, providing information that the latter’s shills suppress.  But it’s also brash and controversial, qualities that titillate the mind and keep people coming back for more.   In a word, it’s fun.

By the way, sardonic media depictions are nothing new; they were even present in colonial times.  And if the print press wants to survive, it had better take a reality pill and learn that faint heart never won fair readership.  The leftists within it are so often scared of their own shadow, and they seem oblivious to the fact that banal, plain vanilla commentary and imagery is a recipe for failure.

I’m not saying you should stir the pot gratuitously, mind you.   Once  you make the generation of controversy your number one priority, Truth is the casualty and you descend into Howard Stern status.  Expressing the Truth is enough, as it often hurts and is naturally controversial in an age of lies.  Of course, good luck finding even one major figure at a mainstream paper who believes in Truth.

                     Protected by Copyright

Posted in , ,

8 responses to “New Yorker: Obama as a Moslem and Wife as Terrorist”

  1. Zack Avatar
    Zack

    Damn right that cover reflects the souls of the Obamas. Any socialist like them is nothing more than a tool of the devil. God wants us to be free and not under the yoke of the Democrats so we must elect McCain president.

    Like

  2. Joshua Price Avatar

    You’re right. I would definitely describe the cover as a caricature.
    I mean, it’s not like the cover is a real stretch or anything. Just read and listen to the Obama’s, their friends, and associates and it’s almost impossible not to envision that exact caricature in one’s head.
    The Obama’s have no one to blame but themselves for this cover.

    Like

  3. democrat Avatar
    democrat

    This cover has nothing to do with satire and everything to do with the inflammation of hate. Even though he is not the candidate that I would like to see in office, I absolutely cringe at the thought of McBush being there, as he would be responsible for setting this nation back even further than it is now. I think that the cover is a very personal attack and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. If it is true satire that the editors are reaching for, then I look forward to seeing McBush being wheeled into the office, or having the disciples of the bible around him as he’s being sworn in. All in all, he’s too damned old for the job.

    Like

  4. Joshua Price Avatar

    democrat:
    Let me ask you a question, and I’m dead serious. Would you classify yourself as a liberal or a socialist?
    If you’re liberal, as I am guessing–and correct me if I’m wrong, why do you dislike President Bush so much?
    I mean, any many ways he’s turned out to be a liberal. Look at the War on Terror. If a liberal president ever decided to go to war you would get something very similar to what Bush has given us. He has fought this war in such a politically correct way that it’s amazing how he continues to be considered by some to be conservative.
    Look at the Medicare prescription drug policy. Look at almost $50 billion for AIDS relief in Africa. Look at amnesty for the 12-20 million illegals. Look at the education bill he let Ted Kennedy write.
    One of the only “conservative” things he has done, and I’ll grant you that it’s big, is appoint what appear to be two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
    In my opinion, you liberals ought to be pretty happy with what you have gotten with Bush. It could have been a lot worse from your perspective.

    Like

  5. Cel Nguyen Duc Avatar
    Cel Nguyen Duc

    Bush is more of a criminal than a liberal.

    Like

  6. democrat Avatar
    democrat

    Joshua, you can’t be serious. Why would I be happy with a murderous thug in our executive office? He has done more lying, killing, and covering up than any “liberal” has ever and could ever do. And anyone who is happily associating themselves with him and his party are characteristic of the first three letters in the 6th word of this sentence.
    And guessing that I’m a liberal would be incorrect.

    Like

  7. obamayourmomma Avatar
    obamayourmomma

    democrat, who would you like to be president, Barney Frank? Like you, he too is gay, and a democrat to boot.

    Like

  8. democrat Avatar
    democrat

    come on, really, could you not think of anything else besides “obamayourmama?” it’s obvious that you’re too juvenile to even address, so do me a favor, and have your parents to call me.

    Like

Leave a reply to Cel Nguyen Duc Cancel reply