Letters to the Editor
dawdler
Published Letters: 101 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@Whispers
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Humor and satire require the satirist to do something that actually goes beyond reiterating all the smears that have come at the Obamas in the past six months.
Actually I think this image goes well beyond just reiterating smears. It is a satiric caricature. It is an absurd exaggeration that, in its absurdity, points out the absurdity of the smears that it refers to.
Gary Kamiya is reduced to the position of the one guy laughing at a stand-up comedian jokes, while the rest of the room is silent - bored or simply appalled. Kamiya is the guy saying "No, really it really is funny. What's wrong with you people?"
Actually, I think a lot of people are laughing. There are also a lot of people that started to laugh, and then stopped laughing because they were overly worried that OTHER people might not laugh. Even though a lot of people are laughing.
If a substantial part of the audience finds an attempt at humorous unfunny
First, I am not sure how you claim to know that a substantial part of the audience didn't find this cover unfunny. A bunch of liberal bloggers are up in arms. That's really all we know.
Second, satire is not always supposed to simply elicit a belly laugh. It is also meant to make you think. And this definitely makes people think.
Clearly this cover is not meant to be a simple laugh. It's a darkly humerous poke at the smear machine. And it works.
-
@Lindy from L.A.
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lindy - OK you're right that nobody has literally said "Hey New Yorker, you're not allowed to publish that".
But clearly a fair amount of people feel that the New Yorker should not have published this image because it will feed the right-wing smear machine. I think that that is a dangerous attitude of fear and there is an implication there that the New Yorker should have known better -- i.e. they should have censored themselves.
Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear or deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors. (Wikipedia)
-
On Pandering and Influencing Voters
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a) I really don't think that this image will influence many voters one way or the other. Anyone who truly believes the literal interpretation of the image is not going to be voting for Obama no matter what. Everyone else will either not care about the image or know that it's some type of satire.
b) For New Yorker artists and editors to comprimise their integrity to sway (or not sway) a vote is really the moral equivalent of pandering and I think we should all be worried about that.
-
A healthy schizophrenia
[Read the article: What's wrong with science as religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is possible, with a little healthy schizoprehnia, to embrace religion and science.
Science tries to explain the physical world.
Religion speaks to the component of the human mind that deals with emotion, symbolism and myth.
Those two worlds are, and should be, truly seperate.
Of course, the part of the human mind that deals with emotion, symoblism and myth has a direct influence on our behavior and our physical body and thus does spill into the physical world.
But a mature human mind will be able to handle the apparent paradox of "living" in two worlds - the world of the physical and the world of emotion, symbolism, myth.
And more importantly, understanding where one world ends and the other begins.
It is even possible to be religious and a complete rational at the same time.
The key is to accept that the emotion, symbolism and myth of religion are meant as a guide for the "inner world" of human consciousness. NOT to explain the physical world
-
Seems inevitable
[Read the article: Cellphones on planes, take 60]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like the idea of being able to text in-flight. That makes sense.
Making a call from a cruising airplane seems dubious. The noise-level on a plane would require the person to scream. I think that's kind of what a lot of people are afraid of.
I recently read in the Economist which may have referenced the same study that said that in their trials the average call-time was less than 3 minutes. A two-minute call is no problem. My fear is some corporate schmuck decides to make a 30-minute conference call from his seat next to me and I have to listen to him screaming for 30 minutes.
-
Consider a Slightly Different Moral
[Read the article: Johnny, I hardly knew ye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If there is a moral here... it is about the need for humility when writing about a candidate's marriage, his religious beliefs and other deeply personal matters.
I think the moral is about the need to think hard about why you even need to write about a candidate's marriage, his religious beliefs and other deeply personal matters. I'm not saying it's NEVER appropriate, but it's clearly over-emphasized these days.
There are things that reporters and readers simply cannot know for certain without empowering journalistic gumshoes to do bed checks.
Replace "cannot" with "should not" and remove everything after "know".
My mistake about John Edwards was believing all his public boasts about his near-perfect marriage.
Consider the possibility that your mistake was focusing on his marriage at all.
I allowed myself to judge him through the prism of his union with Elizabeth when I would have reached a far different conclusion if I had gazed through the lens of his dalliance with Rielle Hunter.
Consider a third option: judge him first through the prism of his potential to be a good president and not his ability to lead an impossibly perfect personal life.
(BTW - it should go without saying that I certainly don't condone marital infidelity).