Obama New Yorker cover

I love satire and I generally really like the New Yorker. When I saw this cover, I didn't know what to think at first but I've since been mulling it over. I'm all for freedom of the press with extremely limited restrictions (generally, hate speech), and was even for the reprinting of the Mohammed cartoons, but this cover bothered me (not rioting bothered me, mind you, just a fleeting sense of annoyance). I saw Hardball with Chris Matthews, and to paraphrase his point, caricature (the type of satire in this case) should be about taking something that exists and exaggerating it ad absurdum. My extrapolation: the cover caricatures the wrong thing. The object of satire--the idiots who actually believe what's depicted--make no appearance in the image. We see only what those people have falsely interpollated into the Obama narrative, with no relation to any known reality. I think that's why there's all this talk about whether or not people are "getting it." Well, yes, most people are, but it takes a cognitive leap (that only takes a few moments, one would hope) to identify what's missing ("the point"). Subsequently, the problem is that Obama himself is mistaken for the object of satire--this is why it's not only tasteless, but a poor example of the form. It's not that I think that liberal magazines have a responsibility to portray the liberal candidate in a good light, but I do think they need to understand the complexities of representation and reception (that is their business, after all)!

The other issue, of course, is that some of the generally neutral signifiers (dap, afro, Islam) are made negative by association (black militancy, terrorism). This whole "being a Muslim" as a negative thing is quite disturbing, as in and of itself Islam's not any worse than religion-in-general (but then again, how can we decontextualize it from its manifest fundamental interpretations? then "neutrality" as a concept is untenable--nothing is innocent, ha ha). In the US, I would say Christian fundamentalists are more scary, because they're more unified--the Muslims are too few and diverse to become a strong political force.

---
Addendum: Here's a funny cartoon.

Thinking about this a bit more, it seems like perhaps simply including title of the article, "The Politics of Fear" would be sufficient (and would serve as the object). It would also put the image in quotation marks, so to speak.

Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn't even be a big deal at all. To quote the Russian from America's Next Top Model, "some people have war in their country."

DS9, Ideology, and Journalism

I was reminded last night of how complex DS9 really is. There are so many different parties with competing ideologies. We have the Federation (military arm = Starfleet), Cardassians (intelligence arm = Obsidian Order), Bajorans, Dominion (consisting of Founders, Vorta, Jem'Hadar), Ferengi, the Prophets, Klingons, Romulans (intelligence arm = Tal Shiare)... there are lots more but I suppose these are the main ones. Continuing from my last post, I've been thinking about dictators, and at one point Gul Dukat (one of the best villains ever, a Cardassian) is talking to the Vorta Weyoun about how they can secure a takeover of the Alpha Quadrant. Weyoun says that resistance will start at Earth, so the only solution is to eradicate its population. Dukat, on the other hand, says that Weyoun doesn't understand that what they have to do is get the Alpha Quadrant to love them, to welcome them as liberators, so-to-speak, because that's the only way to hold on to power. Before the series started, he was the head of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, and all he wanted was to be loved, to have statues and monuments to his benevolence. Of course, he also ran labour camps that were little more than concentration camps. The Bajorans are like Palestinians, but, you know, not so "othered." Hmmm...all this is a gross simplification, but you get the idea.

I read the Globe and Mail every morning, but sometimes I wonder why. I do like the feel of a real newspaper. I like sitting at my kitchen table with my coffee (in the summer, iced coffee) and breakfast and taking some to turn pages physically...I spend so much time on the internet. My most hated columnist is Margaret Wente (more on that whenever her next column comes out), but today there was an editorial by Lorna Dueck that was, frankly, shocking. I've read her Christian essays before--they have her write something every once in a while--but this was the worst. Most of the time her articles are about how people need to bring a spiritual dimension into their lives, and how Christian ethics should inform policy, etc. This one was about parenting. Here are some choice quotes: "I could write a book about my childhood--a lot of us could--but here's the baffling truth: We're born with sin our genes and it takes a lifetime to evolve to good." She is talking about the need to discipline your sinful kids, and how parents are sinful as well: "Sin has no limit of age and if there is any reason to involve the state over family discipline issues, it happens because we are spiritually sick." She ends with, "It's not the state that's needed, it's not even religion, it's just me knowing what to do with the sin." I cannot believe that a publication that touts itself as Canada's national paper would print such garbage. I can imagine the letters to the editor will be flooding in--I'm interested to see which make it onto the editorial page. The Globe and Mail is really not a good newspaper...but I don't see how the Montreal Gazette or The National Post would be any better. One good thing about moving to the States (if I must, eventually) will be American media (seems like a funny thing to say!). Print media, more specifically, is infinitely better south of the border. The Globe Style section is pretty awful...I don't see how Leah McLaren is paid to write such drivel. This is not my "militant" atheism talking: I do think it's abusive to tell a child he or she is inherently sinful. And how is sin defined anyway? Is extra-/pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or masturbation sinful? What about abortion? What a great way to maintain a religion--tell everyone that they're sinful and that adhering to the religion is the only way to some sort of paradise (so don't be afraid of death as long as you're religious).