The Complete Idiots Guide To Satire

I was thrilled to see that the New Yorker's cover was stirring up controversy, until I found out where the complaints were coming from. Apparently the Obama campaign has decided to express solidarity with the dumb people by pretending that they don't get ironic stuff, by questioing the decency of satire employed in the candidate's defense. The New Yorker has honored Obama with this brilliant piece of satirical art which excoriates the exploitation of Obama's ethnic differentness for the cultivation of "The Politics of Fear," which is the title of the piece, by the way.

And the campaign has responded, not by taking the intellectual high road, but by calling the cover " tasteless and offensive." Now maybe these people are so intellectual that they think everyone reads The New Yorker - after all, everyone they know does - but they could have just left this alone. After all, The New Yorker cannot be found on the shelves at Wal Mart, Bass Pro shops, or in the waiting rooms of double-wide trailer realtors.

They could also have had a good laugh at the expense of all the idiots who are, with not a trace of irony, forwarding emails like this one to everyone they know:

WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?
The New York Times

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page >>
OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING 
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks.  These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far.  That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff  were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied.  Where was it coming from?  One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions, they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.  The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters.  This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations.  They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out.  We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions?  That would also be 13 million contributions that would need to be processed.  How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit.  It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

Needless to say, this op-ed never appeared in the New York Times. It has, however, appeared in the in-boxes of millions of stupid Americans, as well the in-boxes of those who are unfortunate enough to be acquainted with or related to stupid Americans. There are people out there who realize that the vast well of fear and bigotry in America can be tapped into with simple little hack-job fabrications like this. Countering with facts doesn't seem to work on these people, so we may as enjoy a good laugh at their epic simple-mindedness.

 

Comments

[PC]

They Fucked Up.

Satire is meant to point out what should be obvious, that which is ridiculous and senseless about society. But there is a limit to how well that goal can be achieved when satirical cartoons or slogans are the chosen medium. The world is a less than ideal place, and it should follow that no matter what the intentions, a mode of expression must be appropriate to the subject matter and the scope of the medium.

As much as I may agree with the intentions of the New Yorker cover, I concur with those who found it inappropriate, and yes, “tasteless and offensive.” It meant to highlight the prejudice, injustice, stupidity, and cruelty of the bigots who oppose Barak Obama based on nothing but their own ignorance. But the tools used to do so do not themselves take the high road. There is nothing on that cover, not even the title of the piece, which clarifies New Yorker’s opposition to the employment of such imagery.

The contents of the magazine may well condemn the accusations against the Obama’s, but the cover uses it only to reap the benefits of the very same politics of fear it is supposedly fighting against. This kind of hypocrisy should not be tolerated in a country where it is already hard enough to keep straight who are the victims and who the perpetrators of discrimination.

The New Yorker may very well sympathize with the Obamas, but it certainly does not empathize with them. I encountered the same scenario as a student at GWU, when a student organization stirred up CNN-worthy controversy by writing satirical anti-Islam posters all over campus in opposition to a then up-coming anti-islam convention coming to the school.

I am inclined to support any kind of just social activism, but if the KKK came to town and I was invited to undermine their movement by putting up posters and poking fun at blacks with racial epithets while wearing a white sheet, I would not-so-kindly decline the invitation. There are some forms of ignorance that is so offensive to human intelligence, not to mention individuals and communities, that no matter what the intention it should never be repeated. As an intelligent person with my mind in the right place, and especially as one who knows how it feels to be discriminated, I could never speak words, draw images, then reproduce and distribute them, with feeling utter disgust at my own actions, no matter who I thought would be reading or seeing them.

[Credit Card Application]

the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

[medical billing]

lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

[FIELDSRosetta]

If you want to buy a house, you would have to get the credit loans. Moreover, my father always utilizes a collateral loan, which occurs to be really rapid.