Althouse: Did you notice how the controversy about the New Yorker cover instantly eclipsed the Bernie Mac story?

July 15, 2008

Did you notice how the controversy about the New Yorker cover instantly eclipsed the Bernie Mac story?

Sunday morning, we were all talking about the offensively sexist jokes the comedian Bernie Mac told at a Barack Obama fund-raiser. Suddenly, this inflammatory New Yorker cover appears and everyone is distracted. The Bernie Mac material was Obama's responsibility, and it offended women and those who are sensitive about sexual material. The New Yorker material was not attributable to Obama, was actually an attack on Obama's opponents, and yet nevertheless gave Obama the opportunity to play the an outraged victim of a scurrilous attack.

Wasn't that convenient?

ADDED: Some commenters imagine that I think The New Yorker instantly rushed out a magazine cover in order to eclipse the Bernie Mac controversy. Obviously, that would be a stupid thing to think, and if you think that I thought it, you were indulging yourself in a convenient belief. To make it uncomfortable for you to wallow in that belief, I will need to lengthen this post with a some tedious explication. Much as I hate to use the sledgehammer. Here goes. I think the media seized on that cover and pumped it into a big outrage, and that outrage was very effective in ending the discussion about Bernie Mac. I'm suspicious that the media is trying to help Obama.

74 comments:

Robert Burnham said...: As Instapundit would say, "Just manipulation of the media battlespace."; 7/15/08, 8:53 AM
MadisonMan said...: Timing. Bernie Mac was over the weekend. New Yorker was more Mondayish.

What everyone should be discussing is Freddie Mac and Fannie May (delicious chocolates!), but no. Lack of humor is apparently more important.; 7/15/08, 8:55 AM
Icepick said...: So much of the Obama Phenomenon has been all about convenience - the convenience of being against the Iraq War when he had no standing and thus no responsibility, the convenience of being black when it suits him and "post-racial" when that was the better tack, the convenience of having rich corrupt friends while proclaiming his purity, the convenience of having a radical preacher for 20 years and then dropping him when Obama "first learned" of inflamatory statements from the church, etc, etc. Why should this be any different?

But what will Obama do once he is President and inconvenient reality sets in? The press can only do so much to guard him from reality once he's The Man.; 7/15/08, 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/15/08, 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: But what will Obama do once he is President and inconvenient reality sets in? The press can only do so much to guard him from reality once he's The Man.

How about actually governing. Something we've been sorely lacking for 8 years.; 7/15/08, 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/15/08, 9:01 AM
Anonymous said...: This is getting to be a pattern.

Each new week, an Obama supporter says something outlandish, scurrilous, inflammatory, or just plain over the top. Reverend Wright (even after the tapes came out), the stand-in Catholic priest, this aid, that advisor, Wes Clark, Jesse Jackson.

And every time a supporter says something questionable, the cameras and microphones rush to Obama who very ‘reasonably’ distances himself from the offending supporter, showing “moderation” and “reasonableness” and “centrism.”

And all the time the message is conveyed: “Obama does not support those extremists. He is not like those radicals. He’s a moderate.”

So I wonder. Is the Obama camp that cleaver, and is the public that susceptible to manipulation.

Is the Obama team purposely sending out a new supporter each week to clearly stake out a radical or outrageous line (reference point) against which Obama can then appear moderate, reasonable, sensible – the independent?

And my gut tells me, “Yeah. Its possible, bordering on probable.”; 7/15/08, 9:01 AM
Icepick said...: What everyone should be discussing is Freddie Mac and Fannie May (delicious chocolates!), but no. Lack of humor is apparently more important.

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac situation is a fait accompli. Why bother to discuss it NOW? The time to have intelligently discussed those topics would have been years ago. But Obama will be President (or not) in the near future. Perhaps we should discuss that before it actually happens.; 7/15/08, 9:01 AM
Icepick said...: How about actually governing.

Obama has NEVER governed anything. So far the only thing Obama has done in his political career is run for ever more important office without bothering to have learned the job at hand. What makes you think he can do a good job by starting at the top?; 7/15/08, 9:04 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I agree that the financial news is important, but I have nothing useful to say about it, which is why I don't post.; 7/15/08, 9:06 AM
AllenS said...: Well, if he governs the United States of America, all 57 of them, like the improvements that he made in the south side of Chicago, I'd say that he's going to make Bush look like an Einstein.; 7/15/08, 9:08 AM
Unknown said...: There's a little something in print publishing called "lead time" that you and your commeteriat might want to look into. The Blitt cover was likely at the printing plant well before Bernie Mac took the stage at the Obama fund-raiser.

Okay, this'll be good...; 7/15/08, 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: None of the blogs post anything on the economy. Except to talk about how great it is. The economy is collapsing, we're probably in the worst financial crisis since the Depression. Since 1973-4 at a minimum.

The dollar has collapsed.

We're in the midst of a major bear market. And keep in mind that the market has not budged one iota since Bush became President, so it wasn't like it was pricey.

China is on the verge of passing us as the largest economy.

We've gone from huge surpluses to $400 billion deficits.

We missed our chance to fix Social Security.

The Eurozone (which doesn't include the UK) is now a bigger economy than the U.S.

Wholesale inflation is running at over 9% year.

Wages have dropped under the Bush presidency

I'd really like to see the statistic on the U.S economy that removes the oil and gas sector and the defense industry. I guarantee it is sharply negative. And that's the economy most people live in.

But if you just read the blogs - you'd think the economy was booming. At least that's what Powerline "we're in the midst of a bull market" would have you think.

Are voters stupid enough to fall for that. Probably.; 7/15/08, 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Allens thinks Bush is the greatest president EVAH. I say you lose all credibility once you say that.; 7/15/08, 9:19 AM
AllenS said...: So, if Obama is elected president, everyone is going to get a raise? How is he going to do that?

I'm doing better every year. And, I haven't worked since 1999. Every year I have more money, and this coming December, I will get my first social security check.; 7/15/08, 9:22 AM
Dr Dre's Underpants said...: You hos be stupid. Easy to distract.; 7/15/08, 9:23 AM
AllenS said...: I think Bush is an idiot, and have never cared for him. I also think that Obama is going to be worse.; 7/15/08, 9:24 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: None of the blogs post anything on the economy. Except to talk about how great it is

Yes they are. You just aren't reading them.

"We're in the midst of a major bear market. And keep in mind that the market has not budged one iota since Bush became President, so it wasn't like it was pricey."

People who bought into the market when the Dow was at about 7500 are doing just fine. It all depends on your perspective. Is it a bear market. Yes. Bear markets is when people who know what they are doing and have those round bouncy thingies (balls) can make money.; 7/15/08, 9:52 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'd really like to see the statistic on the U.S economy that removes the oil and gas sector and the defense industry. I guarantee it is sharply negative.

I'm not so sure. My impression is that the farm economy is not doing too badly. There are issues with fuel costs, and I think a bubble burst re: Ethanol might be in the offing. All those ethanol plants that depended on $2/bushel corn just aren't going to be economical at $6/bushel, so demand may drop and so will prices. And the farm economy next year might be a little more blah.; 7/15/08, 9:53 AM
Greybeard said...: DTL-
"We missed our chance to fix Social Security."

Man, you are amazing. W floated a plan to fix SS, and who shot it down? The folks that now have a 9% approval rating, that's who.

Please DTL...
Tell us more about how this young, inexperienced opportunist, and his ignorant congressional buddies will make our lives better!; 7/15/08, 10:06 AM
MadisonMan said...: W floated a plan to fix SS,

The problem was that W didn't (doesn't?) consult with anyone besides Republicans. Fixing SS or fixing the tax code or fixing Medicare requires bipartisanship that is sadly lacking in DC at the moment. Not blaming, just sayin'.; 7/15/08, 10:14 AM
Greybeard said...: MM=
My point was that the ONLY steps toward fixing the SS problem were stymied by democrats, no matter what DTL might want us to think.
Smoke and mirrors.; 7/15/08, 10:51 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Glenn Kenny, I realize that, but thanks for stopping by to point out the obvious. The thing is that it came to the media foreground in a way that was uncommon.; 7/15/08, 10:56 AM
MadisonMan said...: You didn't get my point. There's plenty of blame to go around. Why blame democrats only when they're given a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? Some blame can be reserved for the myopic partisans who threw down out the proposal in the first place.

That's why I vote anti-incumbently.; 7/15/08, 11:07 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Why blame democrats only when they're given a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? Some blame can be reserved for the myopic partisans who threw down out the proposal in the first place."

I don't believe that it was a "take it or leave it" proposition. The proposal was on the table for discussion (at least as I recall) and the Dems wouldn't even discuss or negotiate. D.O.A.

As it stands now our entire economy is about to become D.O.A. unless the Democrats get off of their ridiculous position on energy. Balls (hee hee) are in their court now.; 7/15/08, 11:11 AM
William said...: Forming an opinion on Obama's sense of humor is much easier than forming an opinion on collateralized debt obligations. Say something zingy about CDO's someone. I think the govt should let the equity holders in Fannie & Freddie take a bath but should guarantee the principal but not the interest of the debt holders. Just my little joke.; 7/15/08, 11:39 AM
The Exalted said...: convenient? what are you saying, exactly?

also, maybe someone should point out mr. mccain's take on the matter:

Asked about the cover at a news conference Monday, Mr. McCain said he thought it was “totally inappropriate, and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive.”

i, on the other hand, thought it was amusing and typical of new yorker covers.; 7/15/08, 11:53 AM
Zachary Sire said...: A comedian making sexist jokes!? A satirical cartoon on a magazine cover?! Please...give me more, give me more, give me more! Anything to distract me will do, just make it funny and offensive! I'm a white male and an American, and I like to say things like "I'm offended!" Please hurry...I need something to make me MAD, but I want to LAUGH at the same time!; 7/15/08, 12:12 PM
William said...: I saw Greenspan tell a joke once. It was like someone's long bony hand had reached under my clothes and groped my funny bone. Greenspan and now Bernanke are extremely deficient in the timing and bounce that define a true comedian. Good material but no delivery.; 7/15/08, 12:21 PM
Matt said...: downtownlad wrote:
> And keep in mind that the market has not budged one iota since Bush became President, so it wasn't like it was pricey.

Are you seriously claiming that the market wasn't pricey in January 2000, the height of the dot-com bubble?

Wow. Talk about selective memory. Next thing, you're going to claim that the democrats social security slogan wasn't "there is no crisis."; 7/15/08, 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: The MSM is completely out of their depth on the economy. Consequently their reports are a jumble of incoherence. (Banks are foreclosing on the little guy! But wait! Banks are also going under!?!) So what gives?

Let’s try to get to the simple realities, starting with mortgages.

1. Mortgages. What happened?
Answer: the investment banks figured out how to sell a product (CDOs) that made them a ton of money.

They figured out that if they created a package – a basket - of mostly good mortgages with a certain percentage of bad risk mortgages (sub-prime mortgages), that they could sell the blended package as if it was ALL good mortgages.

That would be like you figuring out how to fill a grocery sack with fresh peaches and also a few pounds of dog crap, and sell the entire sack as if it was all fresh peaches.

It is like making a gold urn out of mostly gold, and some lead, and selling the entire things as all gold.

So, say what you like about the wall street guys, but they aren’t stupid when it comes to profit. When they can take gold and mix in a bunch of lead, and sell it all as gold, that’s what they’ll do night and day. So that is what they did.

Two things sprang from this new product built on complicated math and some conflicts of interest with the investment ratings companies:

1. The product, an investment instrument usually called a CDO, had a really good rate of return over the risk free interest rate. This incented greedy, short term profit oriented banks to buy and hold lots of them. The banks just couldn’t lay off owning them because their spread was so good and it contributed to their short term oriented personal bonuses.

2. And it created a huge demand for more sub-prime mortgages, which spurred the mortgage companies and brokers to lend to anyone and everyone. The brokers didn’t care if the borrower could pay because the broker could sell the mortgage to the investment bank.

One day some mortgage payments were missed. The market suddenly realized that there was dog crap in them there CDOs. This caused a collapse of the entire CDO product and market scheme.

The banks are now having to write down the losses on the CDOs they owned. The mortgage market seized up because the i-banks don't want to buy any more borderline mortgages.

And the sellers of the CDOs are keeping mum because it isn’t polite to brag about how much money you made selling dog crap when everyone else around you is loosing their shirts.

Sorry so long, but that is the crux of mortgages.; 7/15/08, 12:46 PM
Dan said...: I think this is just a little conspiratorial. It takes more than 48 hours to plan the cover of a magazine. In fact, I imagine the magazine was already being printed when Bernie Mac made his comments.

Not every coincidence is a conspiracy.

That said, there is no doubt the media is carrying major water for Obama. This morning there was an article describing the almost-complete lack of comedic shots being taken at Obama by late-night hosts. Their excuse? There's nothing funny about him. He's so serious, so perfectly poised and eloquent, that he can't be caricatured.

Really. That's what they said. Obama's too perfect to parody. Are they kidding? If I had comedy writers who told me it was impossible to find jokes about a presidential candidate, I'd fire them.

The other problem they have - their audiences are overwhelmingly liberal, and have no sense of humor when it comes to Obama. It's so bad that when Jon Stewart did try a joke against Obama, his audience refused to laugh, and Stewart had to chide them for being close-minded.; 7/15/08, 12:53 PM
The Exalted said...: dtl,

china is nowhere near passing the US as the largest economy, not even in the same ballpark.

how is it "too late" to "fix" social security? once the revenues are eclipsed by outgoing money in 2049 or whatever, we can, at that time, cut entitlements, raise taxes, or issue more debt.

as for the "eurozone," you might want to point out that as more countries embraced the euro, the eurozone got "larger." thus, what is the relevance to the eurozone being larger than the us? what are the comparative populations?; 7/15/08, 1:02 PM
Paddy O said...: "The MSM is completely out of their depth on the economy."

They are completely out of their depth on everything, except media issues and political gamesmanship.

If you have knowledge on any other subject it is immediately clear the media gets the subject wrong most of the time. Economics. Religion. Science. This is also true for most events. From local fires to global wars. If you know something about it, you realize the media has gotten major parts wrong.; 7/15/08, 1:03 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The Sadly No! blog brought this post to my attention.

This really is a dumb conspiracy theory. You think they rushed the artwork production and mag printing for the New Yorker over the weekend?

Ugh. What a bizarre post. Go ahead and take it down.; 7/15/08, 1:10 PM
vbspurs said...: Wasn't that convenient?

The argument was made that Bernie Mac was more weekendish, but the NYer was more Mondayish.

I put it to you that the Bernie Mac story AND the NYer story should've been overshadowed by the death of Tony Snow.

We got three solid days of wall-to-wall coverage of the death of Tim Russert. Fox News doing their bit as much as others, to a fallen colleague.

But my God, almost nothing for Tony Snow.

That's the real tragedy of this weekend, not some cutesy-pseudo-intellectual moralistic cover in an elitist rag.

How typical and expected that MSM didn't give it almost comparative coverage.

Cheers,
Victoria; 7/15/08, 1:15 PM
Unknown said...: Ah, I seem to recall a breasts-in-sweater-near-Clinton controversy you stirred up.

One website, run by law professor and occasional New York Times columnist Ann Althouse, devoted an entire article to how I was “posing” so as to “make [my] breasts as obvious as possible”. The post, titled “Let’s take a closer look at those breasts,” ended up with over 500 comments. Most were about my body, my perceived whorishness, and how I couldn’t possibly be a good feminist because I had the gall to show up to a meeting with my breasts in tow. One commenter even created a limerick about me giving oral sex. Althouse herself said that I should have “worn a beret . . . a blue dress would have been good too”. All this on the basis of a photograph of me in a crew-neck sweater from Gap.

Watch Ann delete this comment faster than you can say titties.; 7/15/08, 1:16 PM
David A. Carlson said...: Outis said:
How about actually governing.

Obama has NEVER governed anything. So far the only thing Obama has done in his political career is run for ever more important office without bothering to have learned the job at hand. What makes you think he can do a good job by starting at the top?

Well, it worked for Lincoln; 7/15/08, 1:16 PM
garage mahal said...: Next thing, you're going to claim that the democrats social security slogan wasn't "there is no crisis."

There is no crisis. Unless you're a Republican with intent on looting it.; 7/15/08, 1:18 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I put it to you that the Bernie Mac story AND the NYer story should've been overshadowed by the death of Tony Snow.

Condolences to his family for a man who passed too young.

But, get a grip. He was a Republican operative and White House flack.

Or maybe I'm missing the part where Tim Russert (who I criticized frequently as being a con symp) was White House spokesman?; 7/15/08, 1:25 PM
Kansas City said...: I don't think Ann meant convenient in the form of a conspiracy, just in the normal meaning of convenient.

Both the joke and the cover are funny, even though Obama clearly should not appear with a guy making jokes about "hoes" just as a matter of the dignity of a presidential candidate and respect for women. He should have said the truth (that is not Obama's first response to anything) - that the joke could be viewed as funny, but it was inappropriate because it was disrespectful to women and not the proper subject matter for humor in a campaign for president.

As to the cover, Obama should have said it was funny and helps to show how silly the smear campaign against him and his wife is.; 7/15/08, 1:34 PM
TMink said...: Titties.

Are you happy Lesley?

Ann wrote: "Suddenly, this inflammatory New Yorker cover appears and everyone is distracted."

Inflammatory? I am just a hick from the South but I thought it was sarcasm, and pretty tasty sarcasm, at that.

Trey; 7/15/08, 2:19 PM
RC said...: Your argument is ludicrous. Do you have any idea what the production schedule is on The New Yorker? It would be completely impossible for them to vary their cover for Monday morning based on something that happened over the weekend.; 7/15/08, 2:42 PM
wwinfrey said...: I don't think Ann meant convenient in the form of a conspiracy, just in the normal meaning of convenient.

Yeah, sure she didn't. That's why she italicized the word "convenient" - because she meant it in the traditional way. Nice attempt at a save, but honestly, she once again looks like the bloggin' law prof who didn't do her homework.

Obama clearly should not appear with a guy making jokes about "hoes" just as a matter of the dignity of a presidential candidate and respect for women.

Uhhhh, OK. At first I was mystified by this statement, but then I remembered the "Obama Rule" -- he's responsible for the words of everyone he appears with, is associated with, once had dinner with, shook hands with in a crowd, etc.. Forgive me, but I'm a little more outraged at the words of McSame's (former) top economic adviser than I am of some celebrity who cracked some off-color jokes at a fundraiser.; 7/15/08, 2:46 PM
vbspurs said...: Tim Russert (who I criticized frequently as being a con symp) was White House spokesman?

I won't be drawn into desecrating the memory of Tim Russert just a few weeks after his own death, in an attempt to correlate his political career to Snow's.

Really, that says all one needs to know about people who think like you.; 7/15/08, 3:09 PM
vbspurs said...: Watch Ann delete this comment faster than you can say titties.

You're confusing Althouse with Kos.

Which is not something Mrs. Kos appreciates.

Cheers,
Victoria; 7/15/08, 3:19 PM
Ralph L said...: I don't understand why the Obamas were so upset about the magazine cover. They're both fabulously thin.
- Channeling Titus; 7/15/08, 3:21 PM
Beth said...: "Suddenly, this inflammatory New Yorker cover appears and everyone is distracted"

It didn't appear suddenly. It appeared on the usual Monday publishing schedule.

When someone says "gee, that's a bit convenient!" they're implying something was planned. That's ludicrous in this case. This really is a lame post.

Coincidence doesn't equal "convenience." Something else will soon come into the news cycle. Then another thing. And something after that.

Lame!; 7/15/08, 4:03 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Obama "thin skinned"??????

Pthhhhbbbbb!!!!!

http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/15/obama-on-new-yorker-cover-its-a-cartoonive-seen-and-heard-worse/

WAKE UP; 7/15/08, 4:21 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Here's a good (and funny) test for con's to see if they would be offended by a similar cover about McSame.

Not that I'm of the offended. I just think the artist blew the joke. He should have leaned into the wingers a bit more and make it clear he was mocking their campaign of lies about the Obamas.; 7/15/08, 4:30 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "Something else will soon come into the news cycle. Then another thing. And something after that. "

Hee heee.

Gee, that's not why they call it a "cycle," is it?; 7/15/08, 4:32 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "I won't be drawn into desecrating the memory of Tim Russert just a few weeks after his own death, in an attempt to correlate his political career to Snow's."

I was responding to someone who made the comparison. Wasn't desecrating anything.; 7/15/08, 4:43 PM
Ann Althouse said...: AlphaLiberal said..."The Sadly No! blog brought this post to my attention. This really is a dumb conspiracy theory. You think they rushed the artwork production and mag printing for the New Yorker over the weekend?"

No, of course, I don't think such a stupid thing, as I've already said in the comments. I've added an update to beat you over the head with the point. Read it.; 7/15/08, 4:46 PM
vbspurs said...: Quoting Obama in the Time link Montaigne Montaigne gave us:

“I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment.”

Using my Obama Politically-Correct Decoder Ring to translate this:

"If a "picture speaks a thousand words" then I personally think the New Yorker did me a lot of harm. I'm just too scared of alienating Hillary PUMAs and swing voters to say so out loud. Instead, I'll transfer the blame unto them by insinuation because I think that makes me look like an uniter not a divider."

Cheers,
Victoria; 7/15/08, 4:53 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "I think the media seized on that cover and pumped it into a big outrage, and that outrage was very effective in ending the discussion about Bernie Mac. I'm suspicious that the media is trying to help Obama."

Well, others on the left think the media jumped on this and the Jesse Jackson story while nearly completely ignoring McCain's gaffes on how Social Security is a disgrace.

If the "BBQ-stained" media is favorable to either candidate, it's McCain. They still haven't reported on McCain repeatedly referring to a nonexistent Czechoslovakia.

And, now McCain is adopting the Obama plan for Afghanistan and the media are giving him a pass. The guy flip flops constantly and they let him off.

In short, not so much.; 7/15/08, 4:54 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Speaking of crude jokes:
McCain finds rape hilarious

More here.

Quick Ann, attack Obama.; 7/15/08, 5:08 PM
Eli Blake said...: What about the offensively sexist joke that John McCain told personally in which he joked about a woman being raped by a gorilla?

Here is the joke, taken from the 1986 issue of the Tucson Citizen linked to:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’

Now, granted this was in 1986 (though McCain has been quoted in some other tastelessly sexist and crude quotes since then, including calling his own wife the c-word and a tasteless smear of then-seventeen year old Chelsea Clinton in 1998) but it is amazing to me that people are more upset about what someone who worked for Obama said (presumably without Obama's advance knowlege or approval) while sexist stuff that McCain has a long history of saying personally.

I'd say what comes out of a candidate's own lips should be taken far more seriously than what someone who happens to know him says, especially if there is no evidence that the candidate had a clue what the comedian was going to say.; 7/15/08, 5:09 PM
Eli Blake said...: Dang, alphaliberal:

You beat me to the punch. And I got it from a different source than you did. Obviously this story is getting out there.; 7/15/08, 5:10 PM
Eli Blake said...: The link to the story about McCain calling his wife a c### is here.; 7/15/08, 5:13 PM
Eli Blake said...: And the link to the Chelsea Clinton 'joke' is here (as I mentioned, Chelsea was seventeen at the time.)

Clearly McCain has some deep seated resentments, and women seem to bring them out.; 7/15/08, 5:15 PM
vbspurs said...: The link to the story about McCain calling his wife a c### is here.

You didn't have to go all the way to Wonkette, to quote that, Eli.

Althouse blogged about it some time ago, but perhaps you weren't around for it.

I guess your idea that McCain being outted, or as you put it, "it's getting out there" as if there is some cabal trying to prevent it from doing so, is kinda hampered by the fact Althouse and others (like me) spoke about it months ago.

P.S.: My father is an ex-military officer. His vocabulary and often male humour sometimes galls me. But you know what? He has never failed to treat me and my mother with respect, as well as women around him. He paid for my mother's medical education, because in his words, he didn't want "some brainless woman around him for the next 50 years of his life."

I guess to some, that comment might even seem sexist without acknowledging the impetus behind it.

I see a lot of dad in McCain.

Cheers,
Victoria; 7/15/08, 5:35 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: " nearly completely ignoring McCain's gaffes on how Social Security is a disgrace."

What gaffe? Social Security is a disgrace. It was never meant to be really functional as a retirement program since the life spans of people when it was conceived were shorter and the system never expected to pay out as much. It's a basic Ponzi scheme. Taking from one to give to another with increasing payouts. At some point the entire Ponzi scheme will collapse.

SS was never intended to be a welfare entitlement system either which it is now with the massive amounts being paid out in SSI to people who have never paid into the system.

It IS a disgrace in that the young people who are paying for the older people will never see much or even any return on their forced investment in OTHER people's retirement. If the young were allowed to put their money into a basic bank savings account they would come out far better in the long run than the pitiful return that Social Security earns. If they were allowed to put even a small portion into a modest growth oriented investment over 30 to 40 years, they would come out even better.

The fact that if you die you can't pass the amount that you have been forced to put into social security to your heirs as a lump sum is a disgrace. Ethnic groups that have historically shorter lifespans, and therefore shorter payout period, should be especially incensed.

It's a disgrace on many levels. No gaffe about that.; 7/15/08, 6:05 PM
John Stodder said...: Ooh! Ooh! Eli Blake did a "pivot!" He goes to the head of the class!; 7/15/08, 6:07 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape

What. No flowers, no cards and he never calls.

You liberals have zero sense of humour. You probably don't find this funny either; 7/15/08, 6:18 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "It didn't appear suddenly. It appeared on the usual Monday publishing schedule."

If the usual schedule is that it appears on Monday, then the fact that we got it on Sunday is interesting. I think some posts refer to a press release that sent out the photograph of the cover, and various blogs had the picture of the cover up before it was displayed on the New Yorker website.; 7/15/08, 6:50 PM
smitty1e said...: >Wasn't that convenient?

In the same vein that the Iraq imbroglio failed to deliver as an election issue, and so we're receiving the economy via pile-driver.; 7/15/08, 6:54 PM
Jon Swift said...: Did you notice how the Church Lady suddenly wasn't on Saturday Night Live anymore and then Ann Althouse just appeared out of nowhere? Wasn't that convenient?; 7/15/08, 9:04 PM
Kansas City said...: Jon Swift's comment is funny, like the Mac joke and the New Yorker cover.

Ann's explanation of "convenient" is not very strong. It just does not seem realistic that the media is highlighting what could be a damaging cover to obscure a comedian's joke that probably would not be very damaging. It is convenient that the two stories come on top of each other, rather than letting the Mac story play out before the New Yorker story took over the limelight. In other words, if there had to be two stories, it was better for them to be on top fo each other.; 7/15/08, 9:40 PM
Beth said...: I think the media seized on that cover and pumped it into a big outrage, and that outrage was very effective in ending the discussion about Bernie Mac. I'm suspicious that the media is trying to help Obama.

So, with a less helpful media that cover wouldn't have been a big story?

Nah. Not convinced.; 7/15/08, 10:26 PM
Beth said...: And I think you're overestimating just how much discussion was going on about Bernie Mac. That story was destined to die with the beginning of the week.; 7/15/08, 10:27 PM
Unknown said...: I said, this'll be good. But in fact, it wasn't THAT good. And the beating-over-the-head wasn't that good (or convincing) either. Back track all you like—it's your blog.

Jon Swift's comment was pretty good, though.; 7/15/08, 10:27 PM
Beth said...: I think some posts refer to a press release that sent out the photograph of the cover, and various blogs had the picture of the cover up before it was displayed on the New Yorker website.

Because it was obvious the cover would be a big deal. But that has nothing to do with Bernie Mac. There's no reason to believe the hoopla over this cover would have unfolded any differently had Bernie Mac never opened for Obama.; 7/15/08, 10:40 PM
Ann Althouse said...: My point is that I see straining toward a new topic, both in the commentary on the NY cover and, perhaps, in the press release from the magazine.; 7/15/08, 11:51 PM
nrn312 said...: My point is that I see straining toward a new topic, both in the commentary on the NY cover and, perhaps, in the press release from the magazine.

Indeed, it is central to it!; 7/16/08, 12:37 PM