New Yorker Decides To Fight Ignorance With More Ignorance

To start, a few excerpts from a GChat session this morning:

“9:21 AM Friend: you see this?: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/newyorkercover220.jpg
9:24 AM me: WOW
disturbingly hilarious
i’m not really even sure the joke was worth it tho.

Friend: yeah, i don’t think it was. also pisses me off that it’s coming from the new yorker. which is already too pleased with itself for being so progressive and such a beacon of intellectual prowess that it’s ok for them to do things other people can’t
as if no one can even look at the new yorker who’s not “sophisticated enough.” it just bounces off people’s eyeballs

9:30 AM me: exactly. humor in an ivy-educated, upper east/west side vacuum. it’s a reckless response to a disgustingly (intentionally) reckless comment

and what’s with michelle’s hair? when did she get a jersey perm?

9:36 AM me: they would never print a cartoon that incendiary about any other (white) candidate on the cover
at the very least, it’d be inside.
9:38 AM Friend: yeah, can you even imagine them doing something remotely similar with mccain?
of course not. that would make them look partisan and cruel. as opposed to this, which makes them look like the truly enlightened white people they really are”

9:43 AM me: the problem is that most of the fears depicted are not outlandish. they’re very real. connoting they are a fairy tales that should be dismissed is equally as ignorant as the original comments…
9:45 AM Friend: exactly. and like it or not, new yorker, people will see that cover and–get ready–not view it as you do
9:46 AM Friend: definitely. the bin laden on the wall is practically camp, but everything about the way michelle is depicted is not even a little bit of a joke
me: not even a little bit
Friend her facial expression alone
not to mention the way they have caricatured her features
me: yeah like a fuckin Fat albert character.