Mean or sarcastic?

[Plane]

<<Did you know that spell check doesn't know non sequiter?>>

Try non sequitur.

Nope ,Spell checker does not grok Non sequitur either.


But it did catch grock and suggest grok , viva Heinlein .

[Plane]

Is this really on the NR cover?

No fair looking.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/a-new-yorker-cover-for-na_n_112877.html

[Michael Tee]

Is it?  Inquiring minds demand an answer.

[Plane]

Is it?&nbsp; Inquiring minds demand an answer.

You really can't tell?





Ok here is the real

Aprils issue was in that vein.....

Is it mean or satirical?

[Michael Tee]

<<You really can't tell?>>

Well, you said, "No fair looking" so I didn't look.  It's not as if I'm a regular reader of that cryptofascist rag and see its cover every other week.   I think the "cover" is very funny and right on the mark.  A doddering fool of a war criminal and his junkie heiress dreaming of more war crimes to come and burning the Constitution to ashes in the process.  Hope it gets the widest possible distribution and thanks for sharing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

A cartoon is a type of joke.

If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it's not funny, and could be called a "failed joke".

A failed state can apparently be rescued by the benevolent military takeover of a superpower. I don't think Saddam's Iraq was a "failed state", until after the invasion decapitated the government.

There is no intervention for a failed joke. All we can do is misunderstand it or be baffled by it. There is no closure.

[Michael Tee]

Rachel Sklar had a fairly interesting piece on this in Hufpo.  Sorry I forgot the link.  Pretty much what most commentators are now saying, that without some kind of exposition or explanation on the drawing itself, the "joke" falls flat - - there's nothing to indicate the back-story of drawing, its context.  The title "Politics of Fear" would have made all the difference, but it was found inside the magazine in the table of contents; had it been a part of the cover, no one would have doubted the parodic nature of the drawing.

[BT]

Her link is here:

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6702.msg67991#msg67991

[Plane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/new-jibjab-video-of-obama_n_113016.html

Oh look!

[Michael Tee]

Gee, I dunno, plane.  That looked kind of, well . . .  cynical, didn't it?

LOVED the part where Hillary beans Bill with the skillet, though.  That wasn't cynical at all.  Just good old American family values reasserting themselves at last.  YOU tell 'im, Hillary!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Jib-Jab is more for laughs than any sort of deep thought, so naturally it uses sitcom skits.
It was funny, though. It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.

[Michael Tee]

<<It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.>>

Absolutely, but whereas the lampooning of Bush, John Insane and Hillary were based on solid fact, the lampoon of Obama, while just as funny as the others, was not grounded in fact.

[Plane]

<<It lampooned both sides equally, it seemed to me.>>

Absolutely, but whereas the lampooning of Bush, John Insane and Hillary were based on solid fact, the lampoon of Obama, while just as funny as the others, was not grounded in fact.

Oh?

[sirs]

You have to consider the source, Plane

[hnumpah]