OurChart officially endorses the
New Yorker cover with Barack Obama dressed like Osama bin Laden, urban fisting his Black Panther-esque wife, Michelle. Okay, settle down. I’m totally kidding. It’s a joke. OurChart doesn’t officially endorse anything outside of the
walk-on role for
The L Word and
Ariel’s Potential Contest… at least this week.
I’m sure you’ve all seen the image and maybe even found it on the newsstands, but this cover illustration has caused a major sensation in the media and blogosphere. I admit when Kelly first forwarded the link to me, I IM’d her to say, “Since when has the
New Yorker become a conservative rag?” I clearly didn’t get the irony.
Nor did anyone else. Aside from a handful of
intellectuals, and
psydo-intellectuals, the rest of the news commentators, bloggers and average citizens all seem to agree that it was in poor taste. That the
New Yorker was promoting blatant racial and cultural stereotypes, further reinforcing the right wing agenda against the Dem candidate, was nothing but poor journalism.
The HuffingtonPost spent their entire Monday analyzing the cover even getting a direct interview with the
New Yorker editor David Remnick who, when asked about the negative reactions,
said: “It's not the first time. I respect people's reactions — I'm just trying to as calmly and as clearly as possible talk about what this image means... The fact is, it's not a satire about Obama — it's a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama.”
I think the best quote was from the illustrator himself,
Barry Blitt, when asked by HuffPo columnist Nico Pitney what he thought of the outcry in retrospect, his
response was "Retrospect? Outcry? The magazine just came out 10 minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."
Blitt is a
regular cover artist for the
New Yorker and also created this cover of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad several months back, though we liberal Americans didn’t seem to find the cover as offensive. If you remember, there was a controversy when Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at
Columbia University this past fall, where he made his famous statment: “There are no homosexuals in Iran.”
Sometimes a title helps in the interpretation of a visual message — “The Politics of Fear” is the title of the Obama cover. However, the
New Yorker, known for its
graphic illustrations, keeps text off their covers with titles appearing only in the table of contents. Which leads our interpretation back to square one.
The controversy seems a great indicator of how bigoted the majority of us Americans are. I will skip the Muslim = Terrorist commentary and go straight to a statistic I heard on CNN last night. Apparently 12% of both Republicans and Democrats believe that Obama is a Muslim. Seems like even educated people can’t distinguish a name from a religion, from race, from nationality, from ideology. When I teach art appreciation to 19- and 20-year-olds with high school diplomas, they routinely mistake Islam as an ethnicity or a region of the world. Maybe they equate Islam to Judaism, where religion and ethnicity are practically one and the same. But we can't really blame our education system in a country where creationism is still being taught.
In September 2005, the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten ran 12 satirical cartons about Muhammad the Prophet. The Prophet is absolutely not to be depicted in the Islamic tradition where worship is based on the words of Allah and not represented in a personhood as it is in Christianity. The paper claimed they were criticizing Islamic fundamentalism and censorship. This caused such controversy across the Muslim world that the Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were set alight. Hamas leaders in Palestine issued death threats and European buildings were stormed and desecrated in Gaza City. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasussen, declared that this was Denmark’s worst international crisis since WWII.
English translation of a comic from the Jyllands-Posten, 2005.
I’m not sure if the
New Yorker illustration will set off the worst national crisis since the Iraq War, but I think it does a pretty good job of unveiling the bigotry embedded in our national psyche... at least for all of us who didn't get the joke.
Sometimes we put our foot in mouth. We all do it, regret jokes taken the wrong way or insights that may just be inappropriate for the time or the company we’re in. Satire is insightful and poignant, albeit rude at times, and sometimes it can be a terrible blunder. There are hits and there are misses. In fact, George Bush did it just recently at the end of the G8 summit, when he jokingly said "
Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
The problem here, Mr. President, is that this isn’t satire… it’s the truth.
138 Comments
haha! no it was my bad,
haha! no it was my bad, looking back my comment was up for interpretation. but i am really glad that you brought up this topic. Cheers!
look
I am a huge supporter when it comes to art or films or documentary etc... and yes people have the right to talk about everything they want to talk about. But when it comes to offending other people's religion that's when we have to say stop... stop. Personally I don't like the thought of everything being censored I don't. I do believe that we have to talk about alot of things in this world. Even if some people or countries don't want us to talk about. But that doesn't mean that you have to offend other people's religions. The Danish newspaper could have just written about Islam or talked about it but to offend it I'm sorry but that's where I draw the line. That's where we all draw the line.
Why religion?
What is so special about religion that ALL SHALL HONOR IT? My child is more sacred to me than any religion could ever hope to be. Does that mean that no one should ever be allowed to criticize her or her choices? I don't think so. There are many people throughout the world who do not ascribe to any religion. Why should be be prohibited the right to express our views. If your religion is strong, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny in any form. If you are confident in the power of your beliefs, you should be able to defend them while still respecting the writes and beliefs of others. If you don't like what we say, or how we say it, then dispute it. But don't ever try to tell us to keep our writing, or our art, or our mouths shut because your beliefs trump our rights.
Taem?
So if we cant offend
people or their religion - or possibly offend them, you are condoning censorship.
I cannot get behind that, I cannot support that, and I don't agree with that AT ALL. Of course, you a free to believe what you want and state that, well frankly so is everyone else - including those who don't say or create what you want to see or hear.
Why? Because where does the line of possibly offending people get crossed? Supporting Freedom of Speech and Art does not mean you support what you like, and what isn't 'offensive', it means you support the Freedom of Speech for all, and Art for all - no matter your feelings on the topic being depicted. You don't have to agree with what you see, you can be offended by it, but if you truely support it you wouldn't say it shouldn't exist because it may or may not offend a religion. Harry Potter seems to offend some Christians because it promotes 'paganism' and witchcraft - should that not be published?
Should The L Word be off the air?
Should this website cease to exist?
Where would you draw the line? Where? Because all these things are fundementally offensive to many different religions.
Religion is important to people I know this, but that just makes it open to art work because it evokes emotion. It's what makes it open to satire for the same reason.
You go girl.....
Excellent point Deean. I'm sure that some people may find this web site offensive. Should it be "censored and edited" as to not offend? Censorship? Now, that scares the hell out of me.
The First Amendment was not a mistake.It actually guarantees all American's that at some point in our lives WE WILL , more than likely, be offended by something that we read,see or hear.... I'm okay with that.
Thank you
Longbeach, censorship also scares to hell out of me. Sometimes being offensive is not a bad thing because it creates a discourse (or should). Being provocative isn't something which should be avoided.
While not an American, I believe firmly in the Freedom of Speech, and I don't believe that Freedom should be revoked because someone happens to say something distasteful.
One of my favourite quotes is "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire. And as long as you are not insighting violence, I don't see the problem.
if you cant see the problem
If you can't see the problem then I can't help you. You know its ur opinion and I'm sure that others do agree with you. I agree with you on some level but not at the part that we should just sit still and let people offend our religion. Just like its Ur opinion. This is my opinion. We are all entitled to our own opinion. But at least we should have some respect to other people's religion.
I don't need your help
in understanding what you consider to be a problem. You think the apparent 'insult' to your religion and/or any religion is the problem and it should be censored because you are offended.
I am offended by your belief in censorship of any kind. Does that mean that you should be prevented from speaking on the off chance you offend? I should hope not.
Now, you don't have to sit back and accept people's commentary on your religion, you can educate if you so please. You can make your own commentary or art to protest it. Create a dialogue rather then shutting down someone elses rights.
it's always 3 am in the soul
or words to that effect, said f. scott fitzgerald, who was, amazingly enough, american. however, he spent a lot of time on "the continent."
the problem with provocative is IT FORCES AMERICANS TO THINK. we HATE thinking in all its forms. we HATE being reminded it's an option & that people regularly engage in it in other countries. we prefer to FEEL, preferably to feel GOOD, mostly about our SELVES. and to feel BAD about anyone or thing that might CRITICIZE us, including those who simply want to point out there's more than one way of doing things. or seeing things. we like to think we like diversity, but what we really like is a rainbow coalition that AGREES about everything.
"we HATE thinking in all its
"we HATE thinking in all its forms. we HATE being reminded it's an option & that people regularly engage in it in other countries."
Playing Devil's advocate here: Who is "we?" This reminds me of the attitude I had when I returned home from an overseas exchange program in England. After months of studying in a British university I took on the belief held by many Europeans that "Americans are stupid, lazy couch potatoes who get all of their knowledge from CNN sound bites."
Then I realized what an egotiscial, unfair blanket statement that was. Okay, I admit that description does fit many people but there are many others who take it upon themselves to learn as much as they possibly can about the world. I think we should be careful about making broad, over-generalized statements like that.
unfair blanket
when you look over your glasses that way, i stand corrected.
Haha. Don't I look
Haha. Don't I look snobbish? ;o) I like that picture because I appear to be reading the comments next to me or checking someone out. Very appropriate for OurChart. Plus it's open to many interpretations....
I like your new photo too.
Remember when the gals are
Remember when the gals are in the planet and they first see Jenny? I think that must be when your pic was taken.
:)Taem?
pas de snob
you look like teacher's taking a sudden close interest. always a thrill.
Sadly that attitude
is not just at home in some parts of the US, it's a world wide epidemic. I'm just unsure as to what the cure is.
Deean.
Deean
I enjoyed our arguments and im pleased to argue with someone who has something to say.
To tell you the truth im not really that religious but for some reason when it comes to Islam or even Christianity I feel offended but I don’t think that things should be censored and I said nothing about censorship not existing. But is there a line somewhere. I guess will never now that thin red line that people shouldn’t cross cuz they do. Anyway I enjoyed our talks and I guess thx for educating me a little when it comes to this topic. Im all for human rights and freedom of speech i just think that they shouldn’t cross some lines..
As for the cure I don’t think it exist…but will just have to find out.
ANGEL…
Lines in these cases
tend to exist more with an individual, rather then a collective. I understand where you are coming from, I really do, and I have enjoyed talking with you too.
I too have been offended by some art, I just tend to question and challenge it :).
It is said that a hardest thing for an artist to draw...
is a straight line.
"But is there a line somewhere."
Yes, it's a line of personal responsibility--as drawn by each artist. A key phrase factors into this discussion, imo:
Freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
Just because we are free to say everything, doesn't mean that everything should be said. I think a little self-censorship, as practiced by individual artists, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course, the line of personal responsibility is not drawn into stone--just like painted lines, it's living/breathing ... it fluctuates. Our artistic pov evolves as we release each piece into the universe, as all public art is interactive in some form.
100 people were killed in the ensuing violence resulting from the Danish cartoon controversy. Those deaths might have been prevented, if the artist/s had practiced a little responsibility.
After all, the most absolute form of censorship is death--and those Danish cartoonist/s veered too close for comfort to this ultimate form of censorship because of irresponsibility.
I don't think they
were irresponsible, if we were to claim anyones irresponsibility it would Newspaper who published it knowing the reaction it was going to cause. Yet, should they have not published it because of the threats? Should they have played into that blackmail? I really don't know...
It's a pity violence sparked off it, but those actions lie solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators on the violence...
Mind you, I agree with you to a point. It's self-censorship that is more important to art, but for me personally I think everything is open to be used it art, but maybe the location/publication of that artwork has to be more carefully considered then it as at times.
For example, there is a very abstract piece of art that is in rememberence for the Light Horsemen. The type of art is not really conducive to the location or the memory of these fine men - simply because no one could even glean it's meaning without being told (which eventually they had to do). So, while the artwork has merit, it is not the best choice for the official artwork. But that's more of a governmental problem I guess.
Censorship of Self...
"I don't think they were irresponsible, if we were to claim anyones irresponsibility it would Newspaper who published it knowing the reaction it was going to cause. Yet, should they have not published it because of the threats? Should they have played into that blackmail? I really don't know...
It's a pity violence sparked off it, but those actions lie solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators on the violence..."
I'm not promoting *censorship* - which would be the case if the newspaper declined to print the cartoons. I'm promoting *self-censorship,* where responsibility for the art lies squarely on the shoulders of the artist. In my opinion, we, artists, are responsible for our output in the universe. And before we exercise our right of expression, we need to be fully aware of the power of that expression, and of our power as artists.
Regardless of blame, the pity of violence is what we're trying to avoid. If it is known that creating said images of a revered religious icon will incite threats of violence, to create those images anyway - in protest of self-censorship or "black mail" - is irresponsible, imo.
I'm not judging the motivations of those artists or what they are intending to express--but I'm saying, there has to be a more responsible way of expressing it--in light of the dead.
Right on, Angel18
I thought it was cool/big of you to write that to Deean. You seem like you are willing to expand your thinking and learn/evolve, which is a very good thing to do, especially doing it already at 18. Keep it up woman! :) Peace, Jodie
lol
Well thx Jodie I like learning and I don't have a problem to learn especially if the teacher is someone like deean who is very smart and articulate...
Awww
Double right on! :) Peace, Jodie
thx for the reply
u were mad and it wasnt even ur religion. how do u think i felt..but the thing is if it was any other religion i would have still be mad because you shouldnt insult any religion. i guess people just have a lot of spare time in their hands...
:O
"As for the Danish newspaper when I heard about it I wanted to kill them..."
Good going. :/
I too am a Muslim. I too found the cartoons offensive. The cartoonist should never have crossed the line between making a point, and being plain mean.
But by no means did it arouse, in me, a need for violence. It just further cemented the fact that we, Muslims, need to get busy in promoting a better and more truthful impression of Islam. Closer to peace. Far from violence and all other negative emotions normally associated with Islam and Muslims.
Zahra
Right on to your entire post. I would only add as a non-believing-caucasian-American, that Christianity also needs to get busy promoting a better more truthful impression of ITSELF. Thank you for posting. Peace, Jodie
P.S. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever happen.
jodie i agree with you i
jodie i agree with you i think all religions should step up and about this never happening i totally agree with you, but we just have to see what the future holds.
I AGREE
i agrre with you that we muslims need to do something to show the world what islam is all about. i mean since 9/11 whenever some1 hears the word "muslim" the first thing that pops in their head is Terrorist which is insane because they dont know us therefor they shouldnt judge us.
well if people in the arab world werent so busy with wars and trying to fight Against each other we might find the time to do something good in this world. something thing that helps our brothers and sisters in poor nations but i guess they cant find the time to do so.
Why, America? Why???
This whole election reminds me why I have such a huge self-loathing complex when it comes to being American (and it doesn't help that I'm actually related to people who believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim). When it comes right down to it, in spite of my liberal passion and immense support for Obama, I can't stand both candidates and this system of American politics. Sometimes I have to remind myself why I even vote. Until the United States grants equal rights for our community, I will continue to vote, even if I have to do so on an absentee ballot from Canada :P.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here
Bad comparison
My understanding of literary satire is that the intent is to ridicule or scorn the subject targeted.
An earlier issue's cover art depicts Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a bathroom stall in a "Larry Craig" scenario.
The latest issue's cover art depicts Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office, Barack dressed in traditional Islamic religious attire, Michelle with an assualt rifle dressed in military clothing, with bin Laden's picture in a place of honor over a fireplace, in within which is a burning American flag.
The Ahmadinejad cover was in response to his claims that there are no homosexuals in Iran. While I agree there are damned few who are "out" because they are generally imprisoned, beaten, or murdered outright by the Iranian theocracy, I seriously doubt that amongst the 30 plus million Iranians, there aren't any gays or lesbians. Therefor, the cover was satirical, in that it used sarcasm to ridicule the false claims of the Iranian leader.
The Obama cover, however, is quite different. Rather than using the words and actions of the Obamas to create the "satire," the artist instead used public perceptions still widely held regarding the couple. In creating this "satire," the artist and the magazine failed to point out that the target wasn't the Obamas, as depicted so clearly on the cover, but the radical right wing extremists who promote such a view of the Obamas.
In fact, the story within that issue on Barack Obama is a complete disconnect from the cover. It failed to address the false claims of radical extremists and racists regarding the Obamas, instead focusing entirely on Barack Obama's political career. While well done, the story had nothing whatsoever to do with the cover art.
The New Yorker magazine can claim all it wants that this latest cover was satire, which is likely true. What I don't buy is who they claim the target was. Not one intellectual or "psuedo-intellectual" I know understood the target to be anyone other than Barack and Michelle Obama, until after someone mentioned "boycott." Only then did officials at The New Yorker and Barry Blitt attempt to claim this as misunderstood satire, and that the obvious target of the satire wasn't the actual target at all. This would also be a first for Blitt, in which the target for his satire was not clearly depicted in the satire, as he claims.
Whether an intellectual, a pseudo-intellectual, or just the average person in the street, the target of this piece is clearly Barack and Michelle Obama, since in no way, shape, or form was another alleged target identified until all hell broke loose over the clearly racist and anti-Islamic cover hit the news stands and check out lines.
And just to clarify, I am not an Obama supporter, but am a McKinney supporter. I just hate seeing dirty politics getting a free ride or being excused.
Illegitimi non carborundum
irony
the cover is ironic. irony is a sharply limited device, overused by americans for at least 30 years. it dates to steve martin, the reagan era, when yuppies started raiding the treasury for personal ends. the comedy consists in saying what you don't mean & sort of having your cake & telling your audience to eat it... what the cover has apparently accomplished, however, is to launch a sophisticated debate in which ammurricans are forced to grapple with literal interpretation. as in, DON'T. the cover depicts our worst fears. because it's a visual, it's visceral. there's no comfort of caption to do our interpreting for us. the image uses the dignity of the new yorker, as one of the oldest & most respected u.s. magazines (although a long downhill slide from its palmiest days), to project an anti-establishment wet dream. where we expect a comforting view of The Oval Obamas, we get instead a radical, Patty Hearst with a machine gun, topsy turvy, radicals in the hen house, boogey man situation. context is everything in making this work to set people's teeth on edge. when the dust settles, we realize we've been chasing the tail of our own phobias. provocative stuff.
Medicine Woman,
While in principle I support their choice to address it on a level accessible to their readership, in today's political climate a sense of social responsibility might call for a little editing. Depicting one of the better known right-wingers drawing the cartoon would have made it more clear to the general public.
Taem?
One cannot know what is in
One cannot know what is in the minds of the artist and editors of The New Yorker. The only thing I can go by is the results.
The result of this cover was that Obama slipped a couple of points in polls, while McCain enjoyed a several point "bump up," immediately after the issue hit news stands and the check out line. Clearly this was not the intent of the publication, which openly supports Obama's campaign (as do most "liberal" media outlets). It also brought back to the forefront the very issues the Obama campaign had already addressed and put behind them, creating a political distraction that right wing extremists could never have hoped for at this stage of the campaign.
While on the subject of perceptions, perhaps OurChart staffers can explain why I have an advertisement to the right promoting a Christian dating site that caters exclusively to heterosexuals? I understand Google provides the actual ads, but they can filter them for relevancy and appropriateness.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Bumps tend to even out over time.
Taem?
Can't handle your guy being laughed at, Taem?
------
LOL
Little,
On the contrary; I think it's hilarious. I just agree with the previous comments of many that a large majority of the general public probably wouldn't see it in the intended context.
:)
Taem?
I don't find this funny, to
I don't find this funny, to say the least. I find it disturbing, and well on point of the image, that quite a few Americans have painted him as.
I'm not sure of the timing of the cover, but I know that the fears haven't subsided - and we really truly haven't dealt with it. And this fear is not based on Obama - it's much deeper. This has to do with 9/11 and it's propaganda of anti-Muslim. Right now, Obama is just a face to throw Muslim punches, since Saddam is dead and Osama is sipping tea with Dubbya at Camp Fatwa.
Our nation was punched at. Then that punch was exaggerated on end for months and years - then out of the blue - it was ripped from us before we were lead to heal. Our leaders and media filled this void of being hit, with tons of fear. Everything was in the name of that punch. We weren't allowed to heal, because our leaders and media lead us through hate.
If now is not the time to deal with this fear, then it never will be.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
Here's the deal...
Fear sells, and if it bleeds it leads. It does not matter how ridiculous the story, it will lead the way in order to attract viewers, listeners, and readers. Whether it's exploding cows, poison pens, terrorists in crop dusters, or cartoons targeting political candidates and office holders, the effect is the same. Everyone watches, listens, and reads, and hence we also see or hear the advertising. If the stories were true, it would top the newscasts and be on page one above the fold in the print media. Instead, most turn out bogus, without any basis in fact, designed to keep you watching, listening, or buying papers. They use teaser lines, snappy headlines, even pictures, to get your attention and make you notice the number one reason for their existence, advertisements.
The constant fear serves the purposes of the Powers That Be. Read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." She outlines quite clearly what has been done in our name, and what is being done to us today. Fear is a key to the current policies of our allegedly elected leaders. through fear, they got us to surrender our civil rights. Through fear, they got us to do nothing while a major city drowned. Through fear, they got us to remain silent while they blew apart a nation that was no threat to anyone. And through fear, if we aren't very vigilant and very careful, they will control the outcome of the next, and every subsequent, election, vote, etc.
Illegitimi non carborundum
CMW, I agree. But again,
CMW, I agree. But again, this is exactly what the depiction was designed to get us thinking about, talking about, and hopefully objecting to. And Girl, did it ever work!
:)Taem?
Rover, I agree that the
Rover, I agree that the entire matter is grave, but I do love political satire when done well. I have a dry, occasionally probably even morbid sense of humor, so I find this type of thing amusing. Not rolling on the floor in convulsive laughter funny. But rather, "Shit that is a sadly true depiction of our society," funny.
Do you see the difference?
Much love,
Taem?
I guess. And if it's that
I guess.
And if it's that blast of a half chuckle while shaking your head saying DAMN that's not right, shocked and yet wide eyed with a head buzz of figuring out the intent or the true meaning. Then yes, I understand.
But I do equate hilarious as an uncontrollable laugh.
Most of the New Yorker covers are not meant to be funny funny, like hilarious funny. It's the kind of laugh that one gets when one is shocked at what another person is saying, while saying "are you kidding me?".
That jib-jab video that grace shared with us, was in the intent to be funny funny...but still poignant.
We might have the same sense of humor, Taem :)
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
I like what you write
But I disagree with the first scenario you mention. I do not find it satirical that President Ahmadinejad was shown that way...I find it insulting and disrespectful. I don't appreciate these kinds of things at all. I find them inflammatory, and not in a good way. Jodie
That's what satire is
In the Ahmadinejad cover, the claim of satire applied because it was critical and scornful of the Iranian leader's claims that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Satire, by definition, is intended to be offensive and disrespectful. I agree that it was insulting and disrespectful, but so was Ahmadinejad's claims, which insulted the intelligence of most in this country. "Ethnic cleansing" of homosexuals in Iran does not mean there aren't any.
And, yes, such inflammatory and disrespectful satire can be and often is inappropriate in the political arena, but in this case I must respectfully disagree that it was uncalled for. Just because Iran forced all gays and lesbians deep into the closet through intimidation, violence, and murder does not mean it is okay for Ahmadinejad to boast of such success. In my opinion, he had it coming with that cover, in spades.
Illegitimi non carborundum
I do understand what you are saying
But I heard something about not wrestling with pigs because they enjoy getting dirty. Peace, Jodie
I heard something different...
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a complete waste of time, and only annoys the pig.
Illegitimi non carborundum
CA_Medicine_Woman
Ha! Right on. :) Peace, Jodie
Yeah
then what are you doing here BaBy?

4 points
1) Satire does not excuse poor taste
2) The so-called intellectuals are frequently "Johnnies" -- out of step with the rest of the world yet somehow convince they're right
3) I wonder if that 12% who think Obama is a muslim are in the same of people who blamed him for the comments of his Baptist pastor.
4) With regard to religious extremist of any stripe, they tend to talk the talk (to you and me) but don't walk the walk.
There's a thin line...
I don't think it's a miss at all...
It's a tribute to the bizarro-ness of the Obamas, and there is a lot of truth to it.
These two work hard to seem authentic, but it just doesn't work well with their actions.
Mrs. Obama has Angela Davis beliefs (I was never proud of this country before they nominated my husband to be president), yet she has spent her whole life as a conformist pearl-wearing corporate lawyer. Her daughter has grave concerns as well. (I can't wait to decorate my White House room).
Barack goes ashen-faced at the very insinuation that he might harbor some muslim ideals, and yet poses in Muslim drag on occasion. So which is it, Barack? And does he even know himself...
If you were to question him, he would turn toward you, as he does in the illustration, with a look that says, "How dare you question me, you uneducated middle-American." And the Obamites would quickly jump to their computers and write to you, "How dare you question Obama."
But the hysterical part is the fist-fuck, er, fist-bump that resembles the Time-Warp gesture in Rocky Horror Picture Show. Remember, resentful Riff Raf and his incestuous sister Magenta? (The Obamas seem more like familial-comrades than they do husband and wife.)
"Let's do the Time-Warp again!! It's just a step to the left!"
The whole Democratic Party is acting like they are in a Transylvania Trance.
So the illustration is perfect because the Emperor's clothing changes every time some one new enters the room.
Now, for your viewing pleasure, here are Riff Raf and Magenta, the Obamas of the 1970's:
http://www.rockyhorror.com/downloads/video_clip3.php
"Prepare the Transit Beams!"
I think you're having a
I think you're having a little warp of your own.
Taem?