Comments on: Dear Mr. Obama,

By: brainwave

brainwave — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:50:33 +0000

Just the sort of data I’ve been looking for! I’m still somewhat new to binaural beats.

By: BW forums

BW forums — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:19:15 +0000

I’ve been looking for this sort of info, thanks!

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:27:22 +0000

I think Tom Toles cartoon is brilliant could be read as supporting either side of the argument. The main cartoon could be read as supporting the idea that the New Yorker cover IS racist. Clearly if both covers are exactly the same, excepting the magazine banner, it becomes easy to see how someone could interpret the drawing as racist

Tiny Toles however is saying that anyone who is sophisticated would recognize that the New Yorker cover IS meant as satire or irony

Wasn’t that a Paul McCartney song — Ebony and Irony ?

By: Cidu Bill

Cidu Bill — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:01:56 +0000

I’m not sure what Toles’s point is, Wally, because it’s true that “the sophisticated can spot the difference” — or at least those who are familiar with both The Racist Monthly and The New Yorker. Now granted, to somebody in Idaho who’s unfamilar with The New Yorker, there’s no difference at all and therefore the cover fails as irony in that area of the country - but the New Yorker doesn’t concern itself with that any more than Idaho’s own Potato Monthly cares about being relevant to Manhattanites.

There was no racist intent in the New Yorker cartoon, which seems to invalidate Toles’s joke.

By: DPWally

DPWally — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:59:49 +0000

If anyone’s still reading this thread, Tom Toles did an excellent illustration of one of the viewpoints.

http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2008/07/16/

(2 people stand in front of a magazine stand with 2 magazines, The New Yorker and American Racist Monthly; the covers have identical cartoons. One person comments “But one’s ironic”. The mini-version of him at the bottom adds “The sophisticated can spot the difference”.)

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:27:14 +0000

Because Jon Stewart was bound to have his say on this topic

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/16/jon-stewart-slams-the-media-for-perpetuating-outrageous-obama-smears/

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:57:47 +0000

Bill — You could be right about Obama sounding whiny, the truth be told I haven’t followed the story THAT closely as I think it is to a large extent a distraction, much like the flag pin nonsense. Still, I do think some comment on the cover was needed.

My guess is that he should drop the whole thing now and move on, which is polite way to say he should just shut up about it, which is what you said … lol

By: Cidu Bill

Cidu Bill — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:41:26 +0000

Nicole, I thought Obama’s responses to accusations up until now have been very effective, especially in comparison to those of his Democratic predecessors. This New Yorker business, though, he just sounds whiny. If I were somebody who believed any of this nonsense about him, I’d probably be thinking “Hmmm… He’s dwelling on this business a lot more than you’d think he would…”

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:11:54 +0000

DPWALLY said :

“Possibly they’ve decided exposure of this cartoon helps, rather than hurts, the campaign.”

I suppose it might help, since a lot of the commentary has to focus on the bogus nature of the accusations portrayed in the cover.

As far as swiftboating goes, after watching John Kerry (not that I was a huge J.K. fan) just sit around and lose the election while he was being slandered, I am glad that Obama IS responding even if it is a little overboard.

By: DPWally

DPWally — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:20:32 +0000

I’m rethinking my comment (#3) after reading the other comments, especially the ones that agree with me, and thinking about the Obama campaign’s ongoing response.

Whenever one of the FoxNews talking heads makes one of these absurd accusations, Jon Stewart replays it on the Daily Show. Sometimes with commentary, sometimes without. He does this because all it takes to make the accusations look absurd is replaying them somewhere else. That’s what the New Yorker cover does. Duplicating the accusations in a format clearly not conducive to accusations makes them look ridiculous. Though it still doesn’t qualify as satire without some type of commentary or exaggeration.

As for the Obama campaign: Possibly they’re being stupid by keeping this alive. Possibly the Swiftboat experience tells them to respond firmly even at the expense of giving the story more publicity (nod to Nicole’s #43). Possibly they’ve decided exposure of this cartoon helps, rather than hurts, the campaign.