I know, it’s crazy. But it happens sometimes. My theory is that Matthews just talks so damn much that purely on a statistical basis he’s bound to burble out something true once in awhile.
This is a transcript of his remarks on Morning Joe a couple of days ago, forwarded to me on a PUMA mailing list:
“I think the world thinks he is already President. They’ve got to be disabused of that. We have a Presidential campaign ahead of us, it’s not behind us. And they are wrong if they think this guy has been elected. I mean, this guy is not elected by any stretch, this election is up in the air; I mean that, up in the air. And I think that is something that is a false perception. He shouldn’t be probably giving world leadership speeches until he is a world leader…
“I don’t think by any means, does Barack Obama have this deal closed with the Clinton crowd. Their contributors, women, women’s group, they are not together. The Clinton people are not aboard. The Democratic party is not united and anybody that thinks that it is, is confused or deluded. This Democratic Party has got problems on it’s hands. And it’s Barack Obama’s challenge to bring Bill Clinton aboard. When I see their two faces together in the same room, I’ll believe it. I haven’t seen that yet. There is big time problems in the Democratic party. And there is the potential that John McCain will be the tortoise in the battle with the hare…
“Barack Obama has got to identify with the gas pump, with the kitchen table, with the husband and wife talking late at night about how they are going to pay the bills they haven’t been able to pay, when they are out of money. He doesn’t get to those people…that’s why Hillary could play a role. Hillary is a bread and butter candidate…this rock star is so elevated, so wholesale that he’s almost created a need for Hillary Clinton as his running mate…who can talk about gasoline prices, talk about women’s job opportunities, equal pay, basic stuff like minimum wage, getting food on the table, getting gas in the tank. He doesn’t talk like that. And you gotta talk like that if you are a Democrat.”
The natural order was restored immediately following these remarks, however, when Matthews started bloviating inanely about “racial/ethnic issues” and “the Bradley effect.” These media clowns still think the Bradley effect explains New Hampshire; they still can’t grasp the truth. The truth was that Hillary and her supporters were so vilified that many Clinton voters kept mum about their preferences in order to avoid being harassed. I personally know many women who kept their support for Hillary a secret throughout the primaries, even from other members of their family.
That same dynamic continues, with countless Hillary supporters utterly determined not to vote for Obama and reward misogyny. But why talk about it out loud when some nasty Obamabot will just insult you and call you a bitch/ho/c–t/racist/Republican?
This is the video from Morning Joe, but of course if you’re like me you won’t be able to watch it without self-medicating heavily beforehand.
Posted by Violet under Election 2008, PUMA on July 27, 2008, 10:41 pm EST
[Eva:]
There again I’ve more to do
Than simply get the message through
I haven’t started
Let’s get this show on the road
Let’s make it obvious
Peron is off and rolling
[Eva:]
I came from the people, they need to adore me
So Christian Dior me from my head to my toes
I need to be dazzling, I want to be Rainbow High
They must have excitement, and so must I
[Eva:]
I’m their product, it’s vital you sell me
So Machiavell me, make an Argentine Rose
I need to be thrilling, I want to be Rainbow High
They need their escape, and so do I
[Eva:]
All my descamisados expect me to outshine the enemy
I won’t disappoint them
I’m their savior, that’s what they call me
So Lauren Bacall me, anything goes
To make me fantastic, I have to be Rainbow High
In magical colors
You’re not decorating a girl for a night on the town
And I’m not a second-rate queen getting kicks with a crown
Next stop will be Europe
The Rainbow’s gonna tour, dressed up, somewhere to go
We’ll put on a show
Look out, mighty Europe
Because you oughta know whatcha gonna get in me
Just a little touch of
Just a little touch of
Argentina’s brand of star quality
Posted by Violet under Election 2008 on July 24, 2008, 12:03 pm EST
A delicious comment from Horseloverfat over at the Mighty Corrente Building:
It is a mania, like with the Dutch Tulips. Obama is the biggest, bestest most wonderful tulip bulb there ever was - tulip bulbs being worth ever so much guilders because everyone agrees it is so.
O joy! Sing to me, horseloverfat, of tulipomania! At the nexus of my life-long passions for history, gardening, politics, art, books, and even the Dutch language, sits a jewel by Mike Dash, Tulipomania. If you have a similar nexus, here’s what you need:
“In the 1630s, visitors to the prosperous trading cities of the Netherlands couldn’t help but notice that thousands of normally sober, hardworking Dutch citizens from every walk of life were caught up in an extraordinary frenzy of buying and selling. The object of this unprecedented speculation was the tulip, a delicate and exotic Eastern import that had bewitched horticulturists, noblemen, and tavern owners alike. For almost a year rare bulbs changed hands for incredible and ever-increasing sums, until single flowers were being sold for more than the cost of a house.
“Historians would come to call it tulipomania. It was the first futures market in history, and like so many of the ones that would follow, it crashed spectacularly, plunging speculators and investors into economic ruin and despair.
“This is the history of the tulip, from its origins on the barren, windswept steppes of central Asia to its place of honor in the lush imperial gardens of Constantinople, to its starring moment as the most coveted–and beautiful–commodity in Europe. Historian Mike Dash vividly narrates the story of this amazing flower and the colorful cast of characters–Turkish sultans, Yugoslav soldiers, French botanists, and Dutch tavern keepers–who were centuries apart historically and worlds apart culturally, but who all had one thing in common: tulipomania.”
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on July 23, 2008, 10:09 am EST
The central issue of this election is not Barack Obama versus John McCain. The central issue is the future of the Democratic party. For PUMAs, the election is about choosing between the Obama version of the Democratic party — misogynistic, sexist, corrupt, pseudo-Republican — and a Democratic party that represents women’s rights and progressive values.
Of course, there’s nothing sacred about the Democratic party itself; PUMAs are not motivated by nostalgia or sentiment. What matters is that there continue to be at least one major political party in this country that stands for what we term “Democratic” or “progressive” values. We must not have the equivalent of two GOPs.
That’s why the Obama movement is a cancer that must be excised. The best way to do that would be to reject Obama now and make Hillary Clinton the nominee — a strategy that would also have the benefit of ensuring our party’s victory in the fall — but that’s not going to happen. The only remaining option is for Obama to be defeated at the polls in November, just as McGovern was in ‘72.
Do you know that history? Do you know that back in ‘72 the McGovernites were the ones who were going to take over the party? They were the bright young things swarming everywhere, the functional (though not ideological) equivalents of today’s possums, chomping at the bit to replace the old party machinery.
The old party machinery had other plans. The big-time Dems sat on their hands that year. The usual election rigmarole was not rolled out. Checkbooks remained closed. So you don’t need us anymore? Fine then. Get yourself elected without us.
You know how that went. McGovern was defeated in the mother of all landslides (though there were many reasons for that, only one of which was the lack of support from the party machine), and that was the end of him.
Those anti-McGovern Democrats in ‘72 were practicing long-range strategy. The Republicans did a similar thing in ‘64, when they sacrificed Barry Goldwater.
Most of Obama’s young possums don’t understand this kind of thinking, in large part because they are so young. For many of them this election is only the first or second time they’ve been eligible to vote, and at that age every election feels apocalyptic. They believe that unless they vote for the candidate who is better (however marginally) than the other candidate in a head-to-head match-up, civilization as we know it will end. The notion of temporarily casting a contrary vote to swing the long-term path of your party in a strategic move that will pay off down the road…oh man, that’s just…what?
That’s why the possums typically can’t get past the “but do you really think McCain is better?” level of argument. Young feminists, for example: they say things like, “but don’t you know that Republicans are anti-choice?” Yes, dears; that’s the point. Republicans are anti-choice, which is exactly why it’s so important that Democrats continue be pro-choice — and pro-women’s rights, pro-Fourth Amendment, pro-separation of church and state, pro-health care, pro everything that the Republicans are against. That’s why we’re trying to keep Barack Obama from taking over the party. I’m willing to lose one election if it means ejecting him and getting our party back to its values.
It’s important to spell this out clearly, because DNC officials are studiously pretending that they don’t understand what the PUMA movement is all about. Surely this is nonsense; by now they’ve heard enough that they must understand perfectly well what’s going on. They’re just playing to the gallery, pitching their rhetoric to an audience of possums and media twits.
That’s what the letter from Don Fowler and Alice Germond was about; it was leaked because it was designed to leaked. Donna Brazile’s recent column is in a similar vein, with Donna suggesting that PUMAs are simply bitter and/or confused about our electoral process (”There are only two choices now: Barack Obama or John McCain,” Donna writes helpfully.)
Or is it possible that the DNC really doesn’t understand what’s happening? I tend to assume that career politicians understand career-politician-type stuff, but that may be a rash assumption these days.
Posted by Violet under Election 2008, PUMA on July 22, 2008, 8:29 am EST
The idea that women’s public sexuality can so precisely mirror traditional male fantasy while simultaneously existing in a kind of pro-woman, I-do-it-for-myself alternate universe is the cornerstone of funfeminist “thought.”
(By the way, when I wrote that I hadn’t heard about Obama using “99 Problems (But A Bitch Ain’t One)” as his Iowa victory song. If I’d known that, in my little reverse-reality story I would have had Hillary striding into her New Hampshire victory party to the strains of “Knock A N—-r Down.”)
Now for the rest of the story:
Our reverse-reality scenario continues with Obama winning the popular vote in the primaries, only to have party officials manipulate the delegate count to ensure that Hillary clinches the nomination — even to the point of assigning some of Obama’s delegates to Hillary for primaries in which she didn’t compete. In behind-the-scenes maneuvers, as Obama is wrapping up his final primary victory in Puerto Rico, the DNC forces him to suspend his campaign and endorse Hillary.
Hillary, for her part, plunges into the role of presumptive nominee with confidence. She abandons any pretense of being a progressive (or even much of a Democrat), espousing right-wing Republican policies on everything from domestic surveilliance to the (non)-separation of church and state. She also drops her support — never more than lukewarm — for full voting rights for African-Amercians, arguing instead that they should have to pass stringent psychological tests and consult with their families and pastors before making important decisions like who to vote for. When members of the Congressional Black Caucus urge her to reach out to African-American supporters of Obama, she sneers that they need to “get over it” themselves, and that if they’d just think for a moment they’d realize it’s for their own good.
Hillary’s occasional attempts to downplay racism go awry. She makes an awkward speech praising Obama for proving that black men can perform every bit as well as white girls. At one of her fundraisers a comedian regales the crowd with “n—-r” jokes; Hillary starts to chide him gently, but then smiles and says, “I’m just messin’ with you!”
I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.
It is time to act in a mature and resourceful fashion. It’s time to put the primaries behind us. It’s time to support Hillary Clinton without conditions or demands.
The underlying message there, of course, is that African-Americans must choose between being a Democrat and standing up for their own rights and dignities. Previously the two things had been compatible; now, it seems, they are mutually exclusive. It’s one or the other.
How strange that the DNC thinks African-Americans will choose the party over themselves.
P.S. FrenchDoc discovered the following comment in the thread at TPM, and I feel compelled to direct your attention to it:
At the end of WWII, all the French whores who serviced the Germans were rounded up. Their heads were shaved, and they were tarred and feathered. At the end of a war, the victorious side settles its debts. If you helped, you get a reward. If you did not help, you are in serious trouble.
That’s really quite mild in terms of the usual Obamabot misogyny, but what’s interesting is the blatant desire for violent revenge. It wasn’t enough to destroy Hillary; they’re still itching to punish her supporters. This is bone-deep hatred of women.
Posted by Violet under Election 2008, PUMA on July 21, 2008, 1:35 am EST
July 19, 1848: one hundred and sixty years ago today. In Seneca Falls, New York, 300 women and men gathered to discuss “the social, civil and religious condition and rights of Woman.” It was the first women’s rights convention in American history.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a young firebrand then, sharp of tongue and sharper of wit. She’d spent the week before the convention laboring over a Declaration of Sentiments, modeling it closely on Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal,” she scribbled on a long sheet of foolscap. “We insist that [women] have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.” Her husband was so alarmed he decided to leave town for the duration.
Just as the Declaration of Independence had enumerated the colonists’ grievances with King George, Stanton listed “injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” The Declaration was read aloud at the convention and adopted unanimously, with 100 women and men affixing their signatures to the document. “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule,” Stanton wrote, “but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object.”
One hundred and sixty years later, where do we stand? How many of those “injuries and usurpations” have been fixed? I thought it would be interesting to list the items in a table, a kind of feminist punch-list, as it were, with a status note on each item. Fixed or not fixed?
#
“Injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman” from the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments
Fixed in U.S.?
Fixed world-wide?
1
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
2
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
3
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men–both natives and foreigners.
4
Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
5
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
6
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
7
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master–the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
8
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women–the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
9
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
10
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
11
He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
12
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.
13
He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.
14
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.
15
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.
16
He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
Making this little table was partially an exercise in translating Stanton’s 19th century prose to modern concepts. Item #11, for example: that’s the glass ceiling. Granted, we’ve made immense progress in the professions (though “theology” doesn’t have quite the cachet it used to), but the ceiling is still there. Hence the big red X.
But mostly I’m gratified by how far we’ve come, at least in the United States (and other countries that have experienced the feminist revolution.) All of the legal restrictions listed by Stanton have been removed, and most of the social barriers of her day have fallen as well. Even the unfixed items show significant progress. The women of 1848 would hardly know what to think if they were plopped down in the midst of modern America.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a sharp cookie, though, and she would have quickly grasped that there’s still a world of hurt buried in items #14 and #16. Changing laws is hard; changing hearts and minds is harder.
The tragedy of this little table is in the column for “Fixed world-wide?” Not a single checkmark. Not a single one of those “injuries and usurpations” has been completely removed from the face of the Earth. It’s all red Xs, all the way down.
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on July 19, 2008, 12:51 pm EST
If being a female Clinton supporter has been a trip through hell, being a black female Clinton supporter has been a permanent assignment to Dante’s lowest circle. An old beloved friend of mine, a lifelong feminist and Democrat like me, is an African-American woman who worked on Clinton campaign outreach in the black community. What she has been subjected to “would curl your processed hair right back to its natural state” (that’s her joke, not mine). I don’t write about it here on the blog because it’s not my story to tell, and besides, I get so angry thinking about what she’s been through that I can’t really write about it effectively anyway. Every time I try I just end up with something like &()%^%%$%$#%$#%$#&*^!!!!!!!. Suffice it to say she’s been harassed, screamed at, verbally abused, physically assaulted, threatened with death, and told more times than she can count that she’s either a traitor or mentally ill or both. (And always, always, she’s a “ho” and a “bitch” and a “cunt” and much worse.)
For black women like my friend, the notion that Barack Obama is the feminist choice and embodies political empowerment is, to put it mildly, bull fucking shit.
Of course most African Americans see things quite differently, and I sympathize genuinely with the pride and excitement Obama inspires in the black community. But that’s not the whole story. As my friend said once to me in an email, “Ain’t I a black woman?”
Posted by Violet under Election 2008 on July 19, 2008, 12:53 am EST
I disagree with Charles Krauthammer on many things, but he has gimlet eye for Opossum:
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.
The occasion for Krauthammer’s piece is Obama’s trip to Europe, where I suspect niceties like the fact that he has not actually been elected President will be dispensed with in the interests of diplomacy. He wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, just like all the other Presidents have done, and I personally look for the Great Seal of Opossum to make a reappearance. He’ll talk about the seas calming and his handlers will distribute loaves and fishes; people will faint, babies will be born (or conceived), and then Jimi Hendrix will rise from the dead and play The Star-Spangled Banner. It’ll be great.
Just kidding. But I bet you would’ve believed me, right?
This thing is turning into one of those kabuki theatre type deals, where everybody feels like they have to line up in the hall and prove their good-citizen credentials with a ritual condemnation of Whatever The Heinous Thing Is. People are scrambling to get their denunciations in before the story winds down; at last check the governor of New York had just made it under the wire.
Jon Stewart is the only major media figure who’s making any goddamn sense:
By the way, the Feminist Majority Foundation is now officially a joke. Ellie Fucking Smeal didn’t send a single fucking “action alert” during all the months that Hillary was being crucified, but now she’s sending us all a Very Important Message about the New Yorker cover which is, I shit you not, “racism and sexism at its worst.” At its worst? Are you fucking kidding me?
I think I’m going to start telling people I belong to the feminist wing of the feminist movement.
Posted by Violet under Election 2008 on July 17, 2008, 3:07 pm EST
Did you know the Pope was down in Australia on some kind of dinner cruise/reef-snorkeling vacation package thing? I didn’t either. But he’s down there, and yesterday he addressed billions of pilgrims in Sydney, warning them against “the tedium of false idols and the pain of false promises.”
Now that’s brave talk from the head of a religion that tells people they’ll live forever if they worship a magic dead Jew.
He said some other stuff, but I didn’t read the rest of the article. I just liked the picture. Goddamn, he looks happy.
Posted by Violet under Godbags on July 17, 2008, 1:29 pm EST
i agree completely that attacks on Muslims are more than simple racial bigotry. the bigotry is partly racial, partly cultural, partly political, and partly religious. invidious, uninformed stereotypes underlie all those dimensions. my problem with your approach is that i thought you were opposing that type of argument when you endorsed “every line” of Apostate’s article “Why Honor Killings Are A Religious Issue”.
Apostate condemned Antonova’s article which, while condemning honor killings, argued that they are not per se Islamic but more cultural (i.e., Islam does not always embrace or embody Arab cultural traditions such as honor killings depending upon the culture of its adherents). to me, Apostate’s post was in large part an explicit rejection of the idea that honor killings are cultural as well as religious. Even in non-Arab cultures, she asserts: “Islam IS Arab culture, to a very great degree. Arab culture IS Islam to a very great degree.” Apostate rejects the view that honor killings are not an inherent part of Islam even though (1) honor killings don’t exist in non-Arab Muslim countries, e.g., Indonesia or West Africa and (2) honor killings cross religious divides but tend to follow cultural ones, i.e., if Muslims in a country practice it, usually so do Hindus, Sikhs and Christians.
perhaps we interpreted Apostate’s and Antonova’s articles differently, but your positions seem inconsistent to me. how can you say that honor killings are not partly cultural and partly political as well as partly religious but then say that Islamophobia is only partly racial? it seems to me that implies that Muslims are not motivated by things like culture and politics as well as religion and gender while we’re more complex. If you are not Islamophobic, why do you “embrace” Apostate’s argument that Islam inherently promotes honor killings even though some Imams insist that it condemns them?
I wrote a 500-word comment in reply and then realized that if I’m going to be writing a 500-word comment, I might as well make it a 500-word post. Especially since the intersection of religion and feminism is one of my favorite topics. So here’s my answer to sassysenora:
First of all, I do think we are interpreting Apostate’s post differently.
I read Apostate’s post as objecting to the facile Western (liberal) notion that Islam is a nice idealistic religion that floats above unpleasant cultural practices, and never the twain shall meet. Her point was that religion and culture are inextricably intertwined. Religion codifies culture, and culture reflects religion. You seem to read her as saying that honor killings and other horrors are religious, not cultural, but what she was saying, in my interpretation, is that this is a false dichotomy.
Islam developed in an extremely patriarchal environment (the medieval Middle East) and is saturated with misogynistic notions. There are a few branches of Islam that attempt to transcend the misogyny and embrace a more gender-balanced view, usually because they’re situated in a different cultural environment (for example, the semi-matriarchal tribes of Indonesia), but it’s an uphill struggle. Judaism had a similar start in life, and it took 3000 years to get to the Reform branch and Jewish feminism — and we still have the Orthodox. Christianity took 2000 years to travel that road, and we still have the fundies and the Catholics. It is even arguable (and I have certainly argued it) that the sexism embedded in the deep-history layers of Judaism and Christianity is sufficient to prevent those religions from ever completely shedding their patriarchal frames, though of course many modern, enlightened adherents disagree.
The situation with Islam is even more dire. It’s a much younger religion, and has not encountered an Enlightenment-like revision. It has not been tamed by secularism, as both Christianity and Judaism have been in the West. And it is rooted in a cultural milieu that is more misogynistic than the historical seats of worldwide Christianity and Judaism — both of which were born in the same sands as Islam, but found their destiny in Europe. (Yes, medieval Europe was marginally less patriarchal than the medieval Middle East; that’s not cultural chauvinism, just historical reality.) So it’s easy to look at Islam and wonder how on earth it can ever get to the place where, say, Reform Judaism is now.
But I hope it’s possible, mostly because my preferred alternative (the disappearance of all patriarchal religions from the face of the Earth) seems unlikely. The modern pace of cultural evolution is so rapid that there’s hope. We live in a global village, and memes are the world ocean. Cultural evolution occurs in decades, not centuries. Theoretically, “reform Islam” is a not-impossible goal.
I really don’t know how to help make that happen, though. I could write at length here about the obstacles — political, ideological — but maybe I’ll leave that for the comment thread.
The cartoonist should have drawn a picture of Obama with the word “N****r” written in bold over it, then explained he was only trying to make the racists look rediculous, and that it was only satire. hows that for satire.
Okay, that would be a no, Bob.
Psychologists say that satire is the last form of humor a person develops, with most folks not really getting a handle on it until late adolescence. And a significant percentage of the population never gets it at all. Think of the people who believe Landover Baptist is real. I had the same problem here with my genuine fake news articles, which altogether too many people took seriously. I guess it’s like asking a color-blind person to tell the difference between red and green.
Granted, there are people out there who do appreciate satire but nonetheless find the New Yorker cover objectionable or just unfunny. But I’m starting to wonder if they’re the minority. As I swim through the righteous effluvience of the tubes, a lot of the comments I see are exactly like this bit from Jon Swift (who, by the way, is a fucking satirist):
I don’t even understand the point of satire. If the editors of the New Yorker actually believe that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, Michelle Obama is not a dangerous revolutionary and that they do not actually burn American flags, as Remnick now claims, couldn’t they have just said that? Wouldn’t it have been simpler and clearer to run the illustration with a big X over it so that we knew what they were trying to say? We are not mind readers. It doesn’t make much sense to say the opposite of what you mean and then attack people for being unsophisticated because they thought you were sincere. Do New Yorkers always say the opposite of what they mean and then expect you to understand?
Of course, if most people really don’t understand satire, then the possible damage this cover could inflict on our irony-poor population could be significant. Perhaps it all boils down to how many swing voters look at the New Yorker. Did you know that in my county, the New Yorker isn’t even on sale? You have to drive to the nearest city and go to a fancy-ass bookstore with a coffee bar to even see the fricking New Yorker, all perched up there in a faux-wood rack like it’s literature or something. For chrissake, it’s not the kind of thing that’s on the checkout stand at Rite-Aid.
Posted by Violet under Election 2008 on July 16, 2008, 3:28 am EST
July 19, 1848: one hundred and sixty years ago today. In Seneca Falls, New York, 300 women and men gathered to discuss “the social, civil and religious condition and rights of Woman.” It was 
