It may have been meant as satire, but its come out as an epic fail...

I think it's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing.

I'm an Obama supporter and I'll be picking up a copy of this, because I think it will go down in history.

Obama has tried so hard to dispel the rumors. I feel for him and his wife b/c this obviously hurt him (did you see his reaction on the news?) Give it a rest, already.

One summer, we hosted a Japanese exchange student who thought free speech meant you could say whatever you want, anytime, to anyone. Her rant on her ESL teacher cost her a cushy school year placement with a rich family on a horse farm. Instead, she was placed with a strict lower middle class family in rural Kentucky for the school year. The New Yorker will also likely discover the consequences of going too far.

The Obama thing was pure satire by the New Yorker. It's best not to treat politicians as friends or family, (or take political criticism personally).

As far as your Japanese friend, she most likely made an attack the teacher took personally, whether or not she meant it personally. I would say she learned an american lesson in "Choices & Consequences", a very valuable lesson ... "C & C" may be the most valuable lesson to be learned in life.

I get the satire, but I wonder if the front page is the best place for it? Its just a thought. Maybe any place is good enough.

I didn't immediately get the satire but can see it now.

I think the reason this fails as satire is that it doesn't lampoon the wild claims of the far-right, it just exaggerates and highlights them in a way that people will nod their heads and say, "I *knew* he was a towel-headed terrrrst."

It's too close to the original claims to be obviously satirical.

I think the original claims are too close to satire not to be obviously insane.

Satire is best when exchanged between people who know each other, and face-to-face.

These online mags and their writers assume we already know them and read them every day. You don''t have the body language to read, and everything depends on your current frame of mind. It's very easy to misread online satire.

It...does mean that. Except in "clear and present danger"

I can think of several instances where this definition of free speech could be problematic. For instance, try saying "I have a bomb" in an airport these days. Or "F--- you" to a judge who's about to sentence you in court. My point is, there are some limits, and they're in place for a reason. While many are unstated and subjective, they still exist.

You can still say those things if you want. You just have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Oh! So, thats where fist bumping came from.

The New Yorker is a fabulously well-established print magazine known for biting satire and commentary and covers that walk the line. It's what they do. 99% of people who are going to pick up the New Yorker (regularly, this mess aside) are going to know and expect satire.
Publications can develop a reputation; when you pick up the Wall Street Journal, for instance, you expect business news.

True.

Yes, but as fox news has taught us, what it's actually called is a "terrorist fist jab."

might as well be ;)

(joke...)