July 8, 2012
"What else an one expect from a Republican magazine, they probably dislike themselves."
Outrage over photoshopping Kate Middleton's teeth for a magazine cover about how something's "rotten" in Great Britain. But the magazine is The New Republic... not the New Republican.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
In all fairness, here in Ireland republicans (small-r) indeed would get a good chuckle over seeing royals photoshopped. Perhaps the Canadian commenter was thinking small-r, not big-R. Do Canadians call people who want to do away with the monarchy republicans?
Orthodontics is a middle class affordable cosmetic treatment in capitalist America since 1960. But as soon as Obama's NHS and socialized everything sucks out the rest of the middleclasses' jobs and savings we will have snaggle toothed smiles like the Brits do.
We will have to remember to thank John Roberts for helping Obma look victorious.
I read that article and a fair sampling of the comments. Lots of outrage of the depiction of the Dutchess of Whatsit's teeth, not much mention of the magazine article title or curiosity of the arguement. Some of the commenters
point out that the authors listed on the cover are Brits.
It wasn't just the teeth. They sharpened other features. Put shine on her skin.
It's desecration. What will they mess with next--Pippi's perfect ass?
But the magazine is The New Republic... not the New Republican.So you say.
Pippa.
Not my day.
The Limeys have had a problem with the whole republican thing since 1776.
Can't imagine why.
Of course, the Lefties have had the same problem since 1848.
PS So why didn't they get this mad at Austin Powers?
traditionalguy said...
Orthodontics is a middle class affordable cosmetic treatment in capitalist America since 1960. But as soon as Obama's NHS and socialized everything sucks out the rest of the middleclasses' jobs and savings we will have snaggle toothed smiles like the Brits do.
==================
Got news for you, the outsourcing of the middle class and the slow, gradual erosion of their standard of living was started over 30 years ago by the economic Elites and supported by every President from Carter on. Including Saint Ronald. The seeds of the cancer planted in the Carter, Reagan years were not as obvious then as they are now...and the path down was masked by temporary bubbles that masked the loss of America's once dominant economic status that enabled a broad middle class.
Blaming Obama for it is like blaming Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union...it actually took many poor decisions by a succession of leaders, decades of mismanagement in the USSR - to lead to their fall.
"Republicans" as UK toffs often use the term refers to those who wish to scrap the monarchy too, not just GOP types.
I saw that cover. I thought it was very mean. I'm surprised they didn't do something like that to Sarah Palin.
The cover does not relate to the contents, 5 articles by Brits, editorials on mostly nothing, except one suggesting Scotland might secede, and the other arguing that England's economy is doing poorly because it chose austerity over massive spending.
In all seriousness, the article points to the US as having one the right thing (Keynesian spending, of course), and as a result how much better off we are.
I kid you not. England is practicing "austerity", and the US economy is doing well, according to TNR.
"We're just humorless and snarky."
No, I think that's just you.
Well, minus the 'snarky' part.
"Domestically, TNR (The New Republic) as of 2011 supports a largely modern liberalism stance on fiscal and social issues, according to former editor Franklin Foer, who stated that it "invented the modern usage of the term 'liberal', and it's one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for."
I always enjoy "outrage" from brit, fleet street, mags. They have curious credentials in the outrage department. Like listening to the Syrian's tut tutting about gang shootings in Chicago.
Here's a copy of my comment on the Daily Mail website yesterday:
So you Brits can make a movie like "The Death of a President" and cheer the assassination of President Bush but you get your knickers in a bunch over an illustration? You guys need to lighten up.
- FedkaTheConvict, New York, NY, 7/7/2012 21:49
Click to rate Rating 596
Is that like the nice, respectable Republican coat owned by Pat that Dick Nixon bragged out in the Checkers speech?
While the TNR isn't exactly as Anglophilic as, let's say, NPR, that they would do this mean of a cover to poor Ms Middleton does seem out of character.
What no one has pointed out yet is that TNR is owed by Canadians now. I wonder if there's some secret Canuck connection to this loath-fest that we Uhmericans are not privy to.
Ernest Borgine has died
Ernest Borgine has died
Abe Vigoda is alive!
"Blaming Obama for it is like blaming Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union."
Amusing. Here is a Canadian opinion on why Obama is like Gorbachev. I copied the article before it disappeared from the web version of the magazine.
On the other hand, some interesting comparisons could be made between the thuggish party machine of Chicago, which raised Obama as its golden boy; and the thuggish party machine of Moscow, which presented Gorbachev as it’s most attractive face.
Both men have been praised for their wonderful temperaments, and their ability to remain unperturbed by approaching catastrophe. But again, the substance is different, for Gorbachev’s temperament was that of a survivor of many previous catastrophes.
Yet they do have one major thing in common, and that is the belief that, regardless of what the ruler does, the polity he rules must necessarily continue. This is perhaps the most essential, if seldom acknowledged, insight of the post-modern “liberal” mind: that if you take the pillars away, the roof will continue to hover in the air.
Gorbachev seemed to assume, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and then beyond it, that his Communist Party would recover from any temporary setbacks, and that the long-term effects of his glasnost and perestroika could only be to make it bigger and stronger.
There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
Yes, they do sound similar.
But-cha just know the REPUBLICANS would have done this if they had thought of it first....
Ernest Borgnine, RIP.
I thought he was a great actor.
I also thought he had a face for radio.
I remember Johnny Carson's joke that Ernest Borgnine and Ethel Mermane had divorced over irreconcilable faces. Ouch.
Speaking of Republicans:
Every State That Elected a GOP Governor in 2010 Saw a Drop In Unemployment
"Bush caused the recession" whiners hardest hit.
Do any GOP governors have to deal with obstructionist in the other party controlling legislative chambers?
I believe Cedarford is Pat Buchanan .
Why is a British publication still calling her Kate Middleton? Normally, she would be the Princess William, but I think they prefer the Duchess of Cambridge. TNR's mistake was not making the teeth look really awful.
I saw in the checkout line today that the Queen is making Kate bow to William's cousins, which is against protocol since a wife takes her husband's rank (unless she's Camilla), and thus not likely true.
"Do any GOP governors have to deal with obstructionist in the other party controlling legislative chambers?"
Well, Wisconsin voters were smart enough to give Walker a Republican legislature. The few Republican senate candidates who lost in 2010 cost the GOP the ability to get legislation to Obama. Of course, he would have vetoed it.
Phil 3:14 said...
"I believe Cedarford is Pat Buchanan without the charm.
FIFY.
Well, in all fairness, we don't understand their media either.
Here's a helpful guide:
"Hacker: Don't tell me about the press, I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; the Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and the The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
(Source)
...former editor Franklin Foer, who stated that [TNR] "invented the modern usage of the term 'liberal'..."
Oh. My. Gosh.
This is a Big F'n Deal, people --
NOW WE KNOW WHO TO BLAME!!!
Phil 3:14 said...
I believe Cedarford is Pat Buchanan .
There's a difference between an extremist and a nut. Most of what an extremist says sounds normal. Then they drop something memorable on you that defies explanation. When a nut talks you know somthing's wrong instantly.
Marshall, said, in a comment referencing Cedarford:
"There's a difference between an extremist and a nut. Most of what an extremist says sounds normal. Then they drop something memorable on you that defies explanation. When a nut talks you know somthing's wrong instantly."
Are you referring to Cedarford's remarks above?
"Got news for you, the outsourcing of the middle class and the slow, gradual erosion of their standard of living was started over 30 years ago by the economic Elites and supported by every President from Carter on. Including Saint Ronald. The seeds of the cancer planted in the Carter, Reagan years were not as obvious then as they are now...and the path down was masked by temporary bubbles that masked the loss of America's once dominant economic status that enabled a broad middle class.
"Blaming Obama for it is like blaming Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union...it actually took many poor decisions by a succession of leaders, decades of mismanagement in the USSR - to lead to their fall."
This is plainly true...no nutjob ranting or delusion here. Although, Obama does deserve blame for continuing the ruinous policies of the past three decades--policies meant to serve and enrich the elites--rather than taking steps to effect actual, you know, change that he promised when campaigning, and that instilled such hope in so many, many desperate and now worse-off people.
RC:
"This is plainly true...no nutjob ranting or delusion here."
All the nuts think exactly this.
In reality the negative effects of globalization are a result of economic evolution. They aren't the result of any "policy", except in the limited and generally useless sense that the policy is not to completely seal off our country from the outside world.
Economic isolation is the only policy that can stop globalization. No one has chosen that policy since FDR because everyone understands it's the road to permanent structural competitive disadvantage and a perpetual depression, see Myanmar. Even though Democrats pander to idiots those experienced in economics at least understand it's a bad idea to ruin the economy pretending we can protect people from life.
Post a Comment