Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Another Off Topic Comment

    Posted by Ginny on July 24th, 2008 (All posts by )

    I’m always throwing in irrelevancies in comments on other’s posts, so here is what is only a comment, but longer and off topic, to Foster’s post below.

    The day I cancelled our subscription to The New Yorker was a sad day; like NPR, it had brought me immense pleasure over a long period. They defined the modern short story, they made me laugh, and if Pauline Kael’s private sex life must have been a bit odd, even her reviews that overrated sadism & violence were intelligent and backed by a lifetime of engaged viewing.

    So, if I just disagreed with their politics or the writers they chose, we’d still subscribe. It was the way they were saying in so many ways what they thought of people like me, people in fly over country, people who. . . well, that’s the deal. The cover was too clever by half. This is not unlike those surveys that show that people who listen to Fox are stupid because they think that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, without considering that people who listen to NPR are generally unaware of the quantities of American flyovers that kept the Kurds free (and alive); that the Fox viewers don’t understand how much America is disliked abroad while the NPR viewers are unaware of how extensive the oil-for-food scandal was and how much it permeated those who voted at the UN.

    The New Yorker did, however, put Obama in a difficult spot. If he “got” the cover and thought it funny, he was looking down his nose at people whose feelings about him he (and the New Yorker) might not consider legitimate but still, it would be nice if they voted for him and even if they didn’t, he does expect (too firmly expect it seems to me) to govern. If he doesn’t get it, well, he seems humorless and not unlike certain headscarf wearing devotees of a religion with which he doesn’t want his name associated who often seem, well, humorless – whether about dogs or pigs or cartoons.

    And, of course, the cover was likely to bring a bit of discomfort because of the nearness of this joke, the number of possibilities it raised in terms of questions if the press ever bothered to ask him about old allegiances and ingrained resistance to humility. History is big and one man small – that is the lesson of our political constraints. Humility seems to be one of the first requirements for elective office in a country that expects us to revere the office but not the man. (A distinction Bush made as he joked about himself and expected a certain level of respect for the (and in the) White House.)


    2 Responses to “Another Off Topic Comment”

    1. fred lapides Says:

      oh, well. I thought the cover “bad” ‘simply because has satire it did not work. I would not cancel a subscription to a magazine I have enjoyed for so many yhears because of one cover…my cancelling will do nothing whatsoever since their sales are now putting them way up there with successful magazines and lots of advertisers.

      Would one divorce after ten years because of one fight with a spouse in a marriage that till that one arguement had been very nice?

    2. Ginny Says:

      Fred, I cancelled it several years ago. I didn’t cancel it over one cover or one article or one writer.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.