New Yorker Follows Now Imfamous Obamas-As-Terrorists Cover With Equally Controversial Animal-Rights Cover

Press Release from I Watch So You Don't Have To
July 28, 2008
Satire or Hate Speech?

Rather than shy away from the pressure placed on it by the controversy resulting from last week's cover portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as Muslim extremists and violent black activists, The New Yorker this week went to press with a cover that is sure to cause an equal stir among the pundits and elected officials.

While many suspected the magazine, known for its liberal leanings and, some say, East Coast elitism, would send out the July 28, 2008 issue with a cover that could elicit little to no controversy, it has done quite the opposite.

The latest cover shows four white thirty-somethings on a porch--in the Hamptons, it has been suggested--enjoying glasses of red wine and a good laugh, while lobsters perform a classic "jail break" scene from the kitchen window, as a pot of boiling water steams in the background. The lobsters have tied together the bibs that would have surely been used to wipe away remnants of those exact lobsters as the "happy-go-lucky" foursome on the porch gorged themselves.

In what comes as no surprise PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the largest animal rights organization in the world with over 2 million members, has issued a statement:

"The New Yorker has shown its true colors by covering their content in these latest covers. Last week they outed themselves as racists and terrorist sympathizers. With this week's cover they have gone one step further and shown themselves to be enemies to all living creatures.

To make light of such a topic--animal cruelty--a topic that needs to be at the center of all of our lives, does this country, the readers of The New Yorker, and indeed all of the world's citizens a great disservice. When will the editors of this magazine stop spewing hateful cartoons into this world?

PETA is officially calling for a ban of The New Yorker by all two million of our members until the July 28, 2008 issue is recalled and the editorial staff has issued a heart-felt apology, accepting the fact that people will not stand for this blatant disrespect for the dignity of humans and animals."

As animal-rights activists around the globe protest the magazine, the editors are, surprisingly, standing behind the recent covers. David Remnick, Editor-in-Chief:

"While we at The New Yorker understand the current debate on our most recent covers, we feel that due to the serious nature of the subjects being addressed, as serious discussion is called for. The New Yorker always strives to produce thought-provoking articles, fiction, poetry, and, possibly more than any of these, cartoons. We stand behind all of our cartoons and the artists who produce them. We welcome comments and assure you that your opinions on these cartoons are appreciated."

Letters can, in fact, be sent to themail@newyorker.com, and as proof of Mr. Remnick's statement The New Yorker published five opinionated letters on the Obama cover in this week's issue. Readers called that cover "inartful," "creative," and "in poor taste," among other things. Look for next week's issue of The New Yorker to be full of similar opinionated letters. Though, according to many experts, given the sensitivities surrounding animal cruelty--sensitivities that most agree far outweigh those surrounding race and religious intolerance--no one should expect the readers of The New Yorker to be as forgiving on the magazine this time around.

Brought to you by I Watch So You Don't Have To, a media watch dog, hounding the mainstream media to get it Right since 2002.

I Have a Reading Tonight

Hey, if you find yourself in Minneapolis tonight, and more specifically in NE Minneapolis around 7pm, stop by the Ritz Theater.

I entered a story in the mnartists.org short story competition MiniStories and they accepted it! Thanks mnartists.

Directions and more info here>>>

Maybe I'll see you there. If not, check back here soon for a link to the story.

What's The Coolest Thing You Can Think Of?

Answer: a tell-all book about the behind-the-scenes antics of the Saved By The Bell cast. Here's to giving up on the career for good and still finding a way to make a buck. Nicely played, Mr. Diamond.

He Said What?

In the same interview with Katie Couric that I posted about yesterday, John McCain actually said the following:

If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd of never had the surge. And we'd of been out of there last March.

Correction, sir: If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd actually never had this war. And we'd never have been in Iraq. If we're going to talk about issues of the past rather than looking at how the hell to fix what's going on, when will these people realize the right Past to look at?

John McCain Gets It Wrong...Again

This is getting absurd. Every time you look John McCain has said something completely untrue. Whether it's referring to an "Iraq-Pakistan border" (see video below) or speaking of Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed in 15 years.
















Now he's getting wrong the one thing that his bid for president is based on: his superior knowledge of the war in Iraq. He's either lying or just has no working knowledge of the events of this war. He claims that the Anbar Awakening was a product of "the surge" of American troops into Iraq, which was announced on January 10, 2007, four months after the Awakening began.

John McCain and others who share his mindset on Iraq claim to want the Iraqi people to step up and take control of their country. They are constantly trying to blame the Iraqi people for being incapable of doing so. However, when news comes out that may actually point to success in that country coming as a result of the actions of its own people, McCain and company still want to claim all the credit for the American troops. It is yet another indication of these people's true desire for that region: a presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East for, well, who knows how long, in order to keep American control over the region. This is not about the Iraqi people having control of their country. It never has been.

The funny thing about this is that Katie Couric says to McCain:

"Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias."

She did not say that Obama totally discredits the surge or claims it was worthless. And still, rather than simply agreeing that the Awakening and the surge together have made for decreased levels of violence, he chooses to distort the facts and attempts to once again scare the American people in doing so (read: no one in Iraq is keeping the peace except U.S. troops).

He's either a liar or incredibly stupid. I don't look for either of these qualities when deciding who should be president.

The Art of Copyediting

Once you start noticing these things you edit everything. This article shows the importance of this job; a job that seems to be less and less valued these days:

Article from the Washington Post>>>

Bush's Impact Will Be Felt Long After He Is Gone

Ignoring the facts that opening up offshore areas to oil drilling will do nothing in the near term and little over the long term to solve high gas prices, and that the oil industry does not even have the equipment to extract the oil, the Bush administration pushes forward in its attempts to let the oil industry profit hugely:

Story on Guernica's blog.

In his book The Court and the Cross, Frederick Lane points out how long after a President is out of office his impact can possibly be felt by the lifetime tenures of the Supreme Court Justices he has appointed (three decades is becoming less and less an anomaly). Here we have another attempt by President Bush to make his presence felt in this country long after he is gone.

The House is pursuing legislation that would make oil companies dig for oil on acres of land where they already have leases. The opposing argument is that those leases don't come with treasure maps with X marking the spot where they can dig. It takes time and research to find and extract the oil. What this means is those companies aren't even producing crude oil to help the current gas crisis. Therefore, more leases will do nothing for the short term, because, as the companies have pointed out, it takes time, research, and resources to act on those leases.

So, what we have here is an attempt by this administration to continue to let big oil companies profit long after the presidential election this November has come and gone. If given more leases these companies will be allowed to continue to figure out where the oil is on their current leases (or not), as the new ones wait in the wings to go through the same process in the future. All the while making huge profits.

And then when the time comes (if the time comes) to switch to alternative energy, the same companies profiting now will be the ones to profit in the future.

But let's worry about the profits to be made off of oil before we think about the profits to be made elsewhere.

This is Fun

"A false patriot who would rather be loud than right."
-Keith Olbermann

Every once in a while I get caught up watching Bill O'Reilly videos on YouTube. One leads to the next; I get so enraged, but I keep watching. It's some sort of masochism, I suppose. Anyway, as usual I come to no new conclusions. And as usual, though I'm not sure why anymore, I am baffled that there are people out there who actually watch this guy and, worse still, watch him as their source of news. It's insulting to the profession of journalism.

Anyway, I know two things right now:

1) It's 1:51am Central time and started this post over two hours ago.

2) Bill O'Reilly should have his citizenship revoked.

Here, Phil Donohue serves him. Period. I love that he's calling him "Billy":



I wish this guy had been in the studio rather than via satellite so he could have kicked the shit out of O'Reilly. How can people think that this guy supports any one of the troops, talking to a nine-year veteran like this. Have some fucking respect:



O'Reilly tries to end his interviews with questions that will elicit answers that he can use out of context in the future, because he knows his viewers are either too stupid, too ignorant, or just too wrapped up in living a life of comfort, letting other people do their killing to ever even contemplate going back and checking the transcripts or watching the whole interview to figure out what his guest was actually saying. He did it in the video above with the veteran (nine years!) by asking him if he would be happy if Iraq became a calm, U.S.-loving country. Since the WAR VETERAN didn't give a hearty "Hell yes, Bill, I'd be happy as a pig in shit" answer, O'Reilly will be able to count him among his Bush-hating group, those of us who O'Reilly claims hate Bush so much that that leads us to our dissent and disagreement with the war. As if Iraq becoming a calm, U.S.-loving nation would instantly wipe the slate clean of all the blood already shed. Anyway, here, O'Reilly tries to pull the same shit on Ron Paul. Oh, and Billy, you might want to check your guests' voting records before you try to challenge them on what they did or did not authorize:



In all my rants about how much TV news sucks why, why!, has no one told me to watch Keith Olbermann's show. I love this first clip more than I can express. The second one is just to prove what a dick the guy is:





p.s. I have no idea if these clips are from recent shows or old news. Like I said, I only watch the clips in bulk because I can't seem to help it. Sorry if you've already seen all of these.

This Pretty Much Sums it Up, So I Don't Really Have to Speak on This Anymore (But I Probably Still Will)

From the “People This Lacking in Self-Awareness Really Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Speak in Public Ever Again” Files
via Whatever by John Scalzi on 7/10/08

The following heart-stoppingly clueless comment, from this CNN article on Barack Obama:

With Clinton’s debt yet to be paid off, some of her supporters are balking at the idea of donating to Obama — especially if he does not choose her to be his running mate.

“I certainly know there are lots of people who are withholding their money,” said Lynn Forester de Rothschild, one of Clinton’s “Hill-raisers” who raised over $100,000 for the former first lady.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don’t like him. I feel like he is an elitist.”

Folks, meet Lynn Forester de Rothschild, otherwise known as Lady de Rothschild:

Lady de Rothschild is Founder and Chief Executive of E L Rothschild LLC, a private company, since June 2002. From 1990 to 2002, Lady de Rothschild was President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstMark Holdings, Inc., which owned and managed various telecommunications companies. She was Executive Vice President for Development at Metromedia Telecommunications, Inc. from 1984 to 1989. She began her career in 1980 as an associate at the law firm of Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett LLP, where she practiced corporate law. Lady de Rothschild is a director of The Economist Newspaper Limited (member of the Audit Committee). She is also a member of the U.N. Advisory Committee on Inclusive Financial Services and a trustee of the American Fund for the Tate Gallery, the Outward Bound Trust (UK), and the Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue (Deutsche Bank). Lady de Rothschild is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Policy Association, and she served as a member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee and as the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board under President Clinton.

This article notes that Lady de Rothschild was worth $100 million in 1998… which was before she married Sir Evelyn Rothschild, of the British branch of the Rothschild financial dynasty, which is worth, well, lots.

So, on one hand, I suppose Lady de Rothschild might know what an elitist looks like. On the other hand, her saying she doesn’t like Obama because she thinks he is elitist is so full of rich and creamy clueless irony that I feel like every person in the country who makes less than a quarter million dollars a year ought to drop trou, face away from Lady de Rothschild, and tell her to kiss our base and common puckerguards. Anyone who lives on a 3,200 acre estate that features an entrance hall “notable for its large paintings by Thomas Gainsborough, George Romney, and Joshua Reynolds” loses the ability to criticize anyone else in the entire goddamn universe for being “elitist,” particularly a dude who while growing up got to experience the joys of a food stamp dinner.

Yes, Barack Obama is part of the elite, and may even be an elitist. Fine. But, you know what, there’s “graduate from good schools and work hard in public service” elite, and then there’s “make millions in corporate America and marry into the family that owned the mortgage on Europe” elite. Those are two entirely different sorts of elite. Guess which one doesn’t get to call the other “elitist” like it’s a smear.

On My Dad Trying to Teach Me a Lesson...Over and Over

My Dad is trying to sell me his bike for (probably) more than a father should charge a son for a bike that the father doesn't really use anymore. I pointed this out to him, using the fact that when I do get a new bike I would most likely just give my old bike to my nephew if he wanted it. And he's my nephew, not my son.

My Dad's response? He is very concerned that I do not, at the age of 29, have the cash readily available for this purchase. Or rather, the fact that I am 29, unmarried, and not a property owner, and still (still!) I do not have the cash readily available for such a purchase is of great concern to him. He told me that he is trying to teach me a lesson in finance and saving for the future and that he couldn't, with a good conscience, simply give me the bike. I told him that I have received this message, which he has been telling me since I graduated from college. I told him that the reason I had to think about whether or not to buy the bike was because I was contemplating investing the money in some way, rather than spending it on the bike. He did not buy it. Or, if he did, he still thought it was ridiculous that I would not have said money on hand in addition to the money I would choose to invest. I don't have either.



He is right. I should have the money. I should not have to be concerned with whether or not I can afford this purchase. Even after I've invested some money. When I was younger I looked up to Alex P. Keaton, Michael J. Fox's money loving character on Family Ties. It made sense: his parents were hippies, like my mom; his sister was rebellious, like mine. I was being different and, therefore, rebellious in my nine-year-old way.

Something happened along the way, though. I'm not sure what or when or where, but something happened. I was not concerned about money as much. I tried to find something that I actually liked to do; tried to put that first, before concerns of money. But, these days, it's hard to figure out was that is. And the things I'm doing certainly don't satisfy me on both fronts, which makes me not so thrilled about the things I like to do.

Wayne Coyne keeps singing in my ear, "I don't know how a man decides what's right for his own life." It's on repeat.

And all I know is I want a new bike.

Delusional

I'm reading about General Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain's service in Vietnam and how it doesn't necessarily translate to the capability to be president. Seems to make sense, right? Someone can certainly be highly praised in one aspect of life that does not translate into success in other aspects, right?

Well, the mainstream media have been quoting everything out of context and performing all of the usual tricks that make them mainstream. I've read a couple of articles where, instead of giving the whole context of one of General Clark's comments, the "news" sources have chosen just to print this: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." It does sound like an attack like that. But here's the whole exchange:

[BOB] SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Clark was simply responding to the fact that, yes, you're right, Obama has not ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. But is that how we are to choose our presidents? How many presidents have ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down? Seriously, I want the numbers.

When is the media going to stop pandering like this? Why can't people just accept that certain things, even if you don't want to hear them, may just be true. Being a POW does not qualify you to be president. It's just a fact. Maybe community organizing in Chicago doesn't either, but I'd rather put my stock in that kind of experience.

Now, before I forget why I even started this post: Delusional. In my reading about this story I came across this quote from Senator Joseph Lieberman on Yahoo News:

``I hope Barack Obama goes to Iraq,'' Joseph Lieberman, an independent U.S. senator from Connecticut, said on the CBS program today. ``And frankly I hope he changes his position. Because if we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do, for the last couple of years, today Iran and al-Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.''

Then I remembered something I read today in the June 30th issue of the New Yorker. Dorothy Wickenden quotes from a speech that Obama gave back in 2002:

“I don’t oppose all wars,” Barack Obama told a few hundred Chicago protesters, adding:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

How about if we did what Barack Obama suggested six years ago, Mr. Lieberman? Where might we be then?

These people re-write history as they go.

I Can't Even Begin to Explain Just How Much I Hate Fox News

Every time I click on a YouTube video from Fox News (I don't think I could ever actually tune into the station) I get so pissed I feel like breaking something.

There is nothing that I have ever seen that's come from that station that resembles news. People have the right to think what they will, but that's not journalism. To call what the people at Fox do "news" is offensive to anyone who has ever taken part in the actual production or consumption of actual news.

And, for anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy or who thinks that there are not people out there who are actively and dishonestly trying to make you think something that is completely false, who will do whatever it takes to make your mind think a certain way, then little things like this should make it evident that such tactics take place. If they are willing to attempt to make you feel something toward an individual based on photo manipulation, is it really all that hard to believe that they will lie as much as possible to make you feel how they feel? They're relying on you not looking into it.



The people at Fox show they know how to use Photoshop...poorly.