As many of you have already heard, this week’s cover of the New Yorker is causing quite the uproar. The cartoon, which was meant as a satire, combines many of the smears that have been thrown at the Obamas over the past few months: Barack is wearing muslim robes and giving a “terrorist fist bump” to his gun-toting wife, while an American flag burns in the fireplace.
Le Castor and ePriddy blogged about it earlier today, and the Obama campaign has already weighed in, claiming that it is "tasteless and offensive." Both New Yorker editor David Remnick and cartoonist Barry Blitt, however, have defended their choices.
What do you think? Has the New Yorker gone too far with its satire? Or are people just being paranoid? Just tag your posts "opencall" and let us know.
Tom Pantera
Skip Williamson
Kerry Lauerman
Dan-onymous
gail williams
J.D. Noir
Salon.com
Comments
Maybe something more like a poll, with comments enabled.
Anyway, I'm reminded of the "uproar" over the Danish cartoon "satire" of the prophet Mohammed and have a crisp double sawbuck sez no one dies over the New Yorker cover and another one sez not the first riot breaks out over it.
What that says about Americans and freedom of speech and our attitudes about race and religion, well, hey... on second thought, maybe there is a post in there somewhere...
Yes. But not in such a way that there aren't any beneficial effects.
We've got serious problems and issues to deal with and talking about this is complete bullshit.
But even if I did think it was offensive I support the right to pubish it. It's free speech. Nothing more American than that.