I thought the cover was pretty funny... not hilarious, but funny. Of course the fear is that -- and sociological convential wisdom, at least, asserts -- while we may realise this is satire now, the image itself will remain in play over the next few months, and, in the mind of the ignorant, be supportive of the nonsense which predicated the satire in the first place. That is, the image will be remembered but the context forgotten when the voter sallies into the voting booth. This is why the Obama campaign disliked it even if, surely, the candidate himself did not find the image repugnant, but rather accurate, satirically.

I have no idea where all these upset people come from but it is clear there is something seriously fundamentally awry in their perception of the world in my mind at least. A few even went so far as to say that this was 'horribly offensive' and 'not funny at all' in high minded tones. If you can't see this is over the top then perhaps you need to return to 8th grade english class to be painstakenly reinstructed on the fundamentals of literature. Freud wrote a book about jokes and humour. The book itself was rather unamusing, but perhaps this base level of comprehension need be visited.

Other posters, lacking any evidence, assert the world is 'Mad as Hell' about the cover. Of course, this opinion is not reflective of any major newspapers I have seen. See here [ http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/07/new_yorker_cover.html ] fron the UK's liberal flagship. Or here [ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/07/15/tasteless_new_yorker_cover_will_help_barack_obama ] from a far less liberal rag, where the author questions whether the stereotype of americans as being humourless and unable to comprehend irony might not be true.

IN fact, all over the globe, the lashing out by New Yorker detractors is seen as further evidence that yanks are stupid. Moreover, this overreaction could well convince more voters that, maybe, after all, they would rather not align themselves with such close-minded blowhards (nevermind that in actuality, the opposition is that, times 2).

Southern BUT waspish???? BUT??? I'm at a loss for words... perhaps this exemplifies why the !!! think they are 'the people'. No one could be MORE white anglo saxon and protestant than the so-called 'southerns.' This new fangled idiology (sic) regarding southerners be 'scotch irish' is, of course, misdirection. The point of then being scotch irish, in lieu of just plain ol' irish, was that they were protestants. Same culture as the proddie northerners, same crap.

Now, while Digsby or Bagby, or whoever may have coined the acronym for new englanders, the fact remains: Y'all a bunch of WASPs.

"Cheesy is American faux hipsters with confused priorities. Do other countries have a bunch of self hating prudes constantly flogging this or that supposed musical genius that nobody else wants to spend any money or time on hearing?"

Yes. It's called England. Or perhaps you might recall the anti-Emo lynchings in Mexico about 8 months ago. On the positive side, you aren't hatin' women right now...

I liked the Begins movie and haven't seen this, but isn't all this hashing over Batman in these pages and others a little bit unnecessary. Cool as it may (or may not) be, it's a freaking comic book action movie and very little more.

I actually think Salon is being paid to publish these pieces; in this case, whoever makes Batman pays to have this published. Does anyone recall the too much pimping of Baby Mama and Tina Fey not a few months ago? Does anyone also not recall that Salon initially had trouble covering their operational costs with subscriptions alone? If I were a Salon reader, which apparently I am, I might be suspicious that some utterly banal topics are over-hyped on this site, and that such topics might be in a position to profit the site through money doling.

Tell us! Tell us if it's true. If so, what might actually be fascinating would be the details on the difficulties of keeping a web-based magazine running and funded.

As usual, a bunch or morons have crawled out of the woodwork to be discouraging and act like they truly understand what is going on based on a short letter. I'll tell you WHO is a crappy lawyer: someone who feels they can make conclusions on the basis of such minimal information.

What is certain is this: being a lawyer is not necessarily a stressful job. Granted, should one pursue certain avenues to being a lawyer, one is bound to be stressed, just as one is when pursuring being at the top of ANY field. But, some of the happiest people (work-wise) I know are lawyers who have decided that low-stress private practice was where they would be happy. Some work ion mediation and another friend does exclusively airline contracts .....whatever the hell that is I have not quite figured out... but he has not appeared in front of a judge once. Frankly you can make a good clip merely showing up at court as a nominal DUI lawyer. Not the most glamourous of pursuits, but it is necessary, nontheless, just as some people are COBOL programmers or household plumbers.

Don't be so hard on yourself or follow the crowd of former classmates. You should pass the bar and get on with it. There is plenty of time to not be a lawyer later.

Isn't that the name of a flash gordon character?

"that Jews believed that their spit contains magic healing powers and thus ran around rubbing it in the eyes of blind people in order to heal them"

The spit does NOT contain magic healing properties? Christ. I am going to have to have a word with human resources regarding the behaviour of my boss then....

I gotta say, the snorg tees ad made that all that worth while!