More On The Cover

Don't dare disagree with Obama - St. Petersburg Times: ..."In an e-mail message to the media, the New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, explained the meaning of the cover: 'The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies, and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are. It's a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does — by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about.'

That's what satire used to be about. In the Obama era, however, satire may be satire only if it pokes fun at anyone except the Haloed One. If it pokes fun at Obama or subjects related to the Obamas, it's described as being 'crude,' 'tasteless and offensive,' 'insensitive,' 'racist' and so on.

The hypersensitivity coming from Obama and his minions is dangerous. Does anyone who's half literate not know that the New Yorker, in its singularly liberal way, lampoons everything and everyone? Nothing, especially a flawed individual, is sacred. That's a good thing.

If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.

These people need to know that some of us cherish free expression. They also need to know that if Obama needs to be protected from the satirist's rapier, he doesn't deserve to be the president of the United States of America."