SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Many readers disliked yesterday’s item “WhineOn.org,” about the hysteria over The New Yorker‘s cover illustration on Barack and Michelle Obama. Indeed, the item generated more negative mail than an earlier post that contained the link to the video of Hillary Clinton as Adolf Hitler in the film Downfall.
A few edited excerpts:
I have been a NYer subscriber for years. My immediate response was not mirth, it was sorrow and disappointment. What’s funny is that you blame us, with no regard for the capacity of the New Yorker to produce bad or tasteless satire. Liberals are solidly in Obama’s camp, and McCain’s stance in the polls has nothing to do with us purportedly “lacking a sense of humor.” –Timothy Sanders
I have to say that I slightly object to your characterization of Obama’s camp reaction to this New Yorker picture. The New Yorker is a fine magazine, just like Harper’s, and I subscribe to both. But I cringed at this picture because I think that the general American public, by default Republican/conservative, are far less tolerant of gaffes and/or humor coming from Democrats than they are when it comes from Republicans. I do not think I am elitist here, but aren’t these the same public who voted for Bush in 2004 because they thought he was a far more “authentic,” “salt-of-the-earth guy” and “someone they could have a beer with,” when all evidence, which was no secret, pointed to the contrary about Bush and his rather elite upbringing and connections? –Nitish Dass
How was that cover humorous? Where was the twist? It was merely a visual representation of every bit of slander that’s been heaved at Obama, none of which is true. Which part of the drawing even hinted at these allegations being flat-out lies? Perhaps it’s time for Ken Silverstein to put aside his blind hatred for Obama. Or perhaps Harper’s can change the name of its website to we_slander_obama.org and have done with it. –Len Cassamas
I don’t disagree with all the sentiments expressed here, but I think the satirical nature of the cartoon is obvious. It clearly is making fun of all of the stupid rumors about Obama, not endorsing them, and most people will see that. The ones who don’t are likely to vote for John McCain anyway.
I find Len Cassamas’s comment about my “blind hatred for Obama” laughable. From the outset of this election season, I’ve thought (and written) that Obama was, on balance, the most interesting and refreshing candidate running for the presidency. But that doesn’t mean I have to suspend all disbelief, as so many people seem willing and eager to do, and pretend that he is an unconventional outsider determined to challenge the status quo.
I also have found consistently annoying the egregious way in which the media (collectively and generally) failed to scrutinize Obama and so clearly sided with his candidacy and against Hillary Clinton’s during the Democratic primaries. And this video was unforgivable and could have driven otherwise sane people directly into the arms of Rudy Giuliani.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”