Well…that isn’t entirely true. Today’s firestorm in American politics (tomorrow, it will be something else) is over the July 21st cover of New Yorker magazine — Barack Obama sporting the Muslim garb, Michelle Obama with the afro and the automatic weapon slung over her shoulder. Both seem to don sly, conspiratorial smiles as if they are in on something the rest of the country has yet to figure out. They stand in the Oval office, warmed by the crisp, fiery glow of the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace. And what room is complete without a portrait of Osama Bin Laden over the mantle?

This is the very definition of satire. Not only is it satire, but it is very good satire. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may recall a January entry titled Do You Know When Satire Goes Wrong? The entry begins with the following statement

It is when the people who claim to be satirizing their subjects actually embrace the very hypocrisy they purport to expose.

The New Yorker cover is biting, witty, funny to some and has already done what the best of satirical pieces should do — incite the masses. The problem with this particular piece isn’t that the satirists are embracing the lies. For the people who created the cartoon on the cover as well as the article within know the difference between the lies and the truth. The problem is that we are currently living in a country full of citizens who not only embrace the lies but also refuse to believe or seek out what the truths may be.

21% of the voters in the Kentucky democratic primary said race was a factor in their voting choice. 19% of white voters in West Virginia stated the same. 13% of all Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim. These facts prove that there are millions of people out there who do not know fact from fiction and who are basing their decisions on what they have been told. So, when they are shown something like what is seen on the cover of the New Yorker, they do not see clever satire. What they see is an affirmation of the lies they have chosen to believe. I say chosen because in this day and age, we all have the ability to seek out as much of the truth as we can find. But it is easier to believe in falsehoods, especially when they only confirm the deep-rooted prejudices that have long resided within.

So, my problem isn’t with the cover of the magazine. Harold Ross, the founder of the magazine, stated that the magazine was not “edited for the old lady in Dubuque.” That statement can be taken many ways and would probably offend many. But he had a point. There are those who see the cover as enough and have no inclination to dive in further, and there are those who see the cover, lick their fingers and quickly flip to the article, stimulated to know more. Randomly lobbed accusations without proof are nothing more than hearsay and careless slander. To cast a vote based purely on those facts is both reckless and irresponsible.

It all basically comes down to this — a joke is only funny if the audience gets the punchline; satire only works if the audience knows the difference between fact and bullshit.

The following comes from an essay written by Diane Miller Somerville. The name of the essay is Rape, Race, And Castration In Slave Law In The Colonial And Early South found in the book The Devil’s Lane

The castration of slaves as a form of punishment emerged and continued not so much out of fears about black male sexual ardor but rather out of the slaves’ condition as property. In the colonial South, numerous crimes when committed by slaves or African Americans were considered capital. Since the colonial treasuries were required to compensate slaveowners for executed slave criminals, some colonies looked to dismemberment as a means not only of punishing slave offenders and deterring would-be slave criminals, but doing so at minimal cost. The punishment of castration was serious, yet spared the colonial government the costly burden of compensating slave masters for the loss of slave lives.

The essay later states that during the period of Reconstruction, the incidents of sexual mutilation of black men rose.

With the demise of slavery, however, and the enfranchisement of black men, whites began to conflate politics and sexuality and to associate newly won black political rights with black manhood.

How can any black man who is aware of the history of this country and its psychological and physical emasculation of black men make a such a bilious statement? If a white man had made those statements, both Rev. Jackson and Al Sharpton would be demanding the guy’s head on a pike. And I guarantee, there are hundreds if not thousands of white men who wish to do to Barack Obama exactly what Jesse Jackson stated he would like to do. Only, they say it around their coffee tables or huddled together during smoke breaks with their coworkers. They don’t say it on network television. They never marched with Martin Luther King or railed against the mistreatment of black people in this country or gave voice to the thousands of black men and women who were disenfranchised at the ballot box. They don’t care about any of that. But you do, Reverend Jackson. So, when you make the statement you made, the words sting a thousand times worse than when some nescient nobody with a hillbilly mentality speaks the same phrase.

Nothing hurts worse than being betrayed by one of your own. Barack Obama is fighting an uphill battle, and even those who have spent their lives trying to batter down the doors Obama is now walking through seem to be trying to impede his progress.

If MSNBC were smart, they would waste no more time and give Rachel Maddow her own show. With Keith Olbermann on vacation this week, Maddow has taken over the helm at the popular MSNBC news show Countdown, and incredulously, I find myself even more eager to turn on the television at 7 PM every night just to see that cute little Maddow smile in all its askewedness (not a word, huh? Sorry.)

To me, there is nothing sexier than a woman who has an IQ 100 points higher than my own. Not that that is a huge feat. Still, I think Rachel Maddow is one of the most refreshing and intelligent political minds out there. She knows her stuff. And in a world dominated by testosterone slathered egos and spittle-spewing gray-haireds (Chris Matthews, I am talking to you), I must say that it is nice to find a woman, who is my age mind you, that can hold her own against the big boys.

I tell you what, give Maddow her own show, add a dash of that hottie Michelle Bernard and a little Andrea Mitchell to give the mature crowd a little brain-candy, and I will be tuning in religiously. Hell, Maddow could host the Ag News at 4:30 every morning and I’d watch. Well…at least I’d TIVO that shit.

MSNBC, where you at?? Let’s get to work on this show. Maddow, Bernard and Mitchell…and throw in a little Chuck Todd just to mix it up a little. I’ll be waiting.

There is an article in today’s Tennessean which states that Barack Obama may be writing off Tennessee as a potential win for him in November and how that may be a mistake. Harold Ford, who made an impressive albeit losing effort to win a U.S. Senate seat for the state, criticized Obama during the democratic primaries, stating that he shouldn’t have been so quick to write off states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Even knowing that he could not win those states, Ford states that Obama would have still benefited from showing the people from those areas that he is not an elitist intellectual from the north, but that he can relate to the rural everyman as well.

While I agree with Ford, especially during the time of the primaries, I can’t help but to think quietly to myself that Obama is doing the right thing. Should he blow off the state completely? No. He still needs to appear to the south overall that he is a champion of the entire country and not only those who have appeared to have moved past the antiquated ideologies of their forefathers. However, I can guarantee you that there were two things that hurt Harold Ford during his senate race in the state and one thing that helped him. Obama suffers from the same liabilities and can not benefit from Ford’s one asset.

The one thing that probably gave Ford a fighting chance was the fact that he and his family have been involved in politics in the state for a number of years. So, there was a definite familiarity there.

The two things that hurt him, however, were larger liabilities to his campaign than the asset of being well-known across the state. 1) His uncle, former state senator John Ford, was a tool and a crook. For people who wanted to find a reason to dislike Ford when they were not deft enough to argue against his policies, they could point to John Ford and state that the apple does not fall far from the tree. These would be the same kinds of individuals who are still convinced that Obama is a Muslim and wishes to bring this country to its knees in deference to the Middle East (which we kinda are anyway, aren’t we?). 2) Ford is a black man. We could have done away with number one completely and I still think Ford would have lost simply due to his race. It doesn’t help that the Republican Party chose to run this rather dubious commercial during the campaign. One of the lowest denominators in politics is to prey upon the fears and ignorance of your fellow men. It is also an easy way to win a lot of votes and maybe even win an election (Democrats have wallowed in this muck as well. Remember Daisy Girl and more recently, the Clinton’s scorched earth campaign against Obama?)

Growing up in the south, and more specifically, Tennessee, I know that people from the outside probably have a hard time understanding how race could be such a polarizing factor when it came to making a choice in the area of politics. But, trust me, that commercial was well calculated. It was the Republican’s way of stating, “Don’t you remember what your daddy taught you?”

Recently, while attending a party, I listened to someone dictate a story to other party goers and the following exchange took place:

“It was so and so.”

“Oh, the Mexican guy?”

“No, this guy was normal.”

I heard someone say the exact same thing almost fifteen years ago. This is how far some of us have progressed. Nowhere. These are the same folk who happily perpetuate the lies conjured up about Barack Obama that float around the internet in cancerous email chains that seem to have an infinite shelf-life. I would love to say that these folk are the anomaly and not the norm in these parts, but I honestly do not believe it. The south is steeped in heritage and tradition. That is not entirely a bad thing, but when it allows people to continuously perpetuate antiquated beliefs and outdated and divisive mores, then it becomes an issue and a stigma that is hard to shake.

21% of the voters in Kentucky’s democratic primary stated that race played a factor in their choice. That’s 21% of people who were actually honest about why they voted a certain way. If we lump in the dishonest/evasive into that equation, I am sure we would arrive at a much more daunting result. But, the fact is the Democratic nomination is won by delegates. It is not a winner takes all process like the Republican primaries or the general election. So, strategically, I think it was a mistake for Obama to throw in the towel before the fight had even begun. By pulling more delegates than people assumed, he could have given himself an unforeseen boost in other swing states come November. But now…why waste the time? He squandered his chance. Now that we are facing the winner-takes-all general election, why focus too much energy and time on the foregone conclusions? Kentucky is not going to go his way. Neither are West Virginia or Tennessee.

I do believe that Barack Obama should make an appearance here because there are people here who honestly feel like he would be the best leader for this country. There are those who believe in McCain as well and for legitimate reasons, and I can respect that. But, honestly, I think that tradition reigns supreme here and there are just too many people who cling to their prejudices and fears. We are a military state as well, and conservative patriotism is bound to give McCain a jolt in the polls. Plus, Obama has the stigma of being both a black man and a Yankee. That’s a double whammy. Clinton won this state twice, as did Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson during their bids. However, they all had something in common. They were southern white men. They had the accents. They had the common backgrounds. They had the Anglo sounding names and they were of the proper hue. Obama has none of that. It would take a whole hell of a lot of convincing to sway this bunch. And he would need a lot more time than he has to accomplish such a change.

So, senator Obama, please stop by again and say hi. But you know and I know and even Harold Ford Jr. knows that Tennessee will end up in the loss column come November.

Sidenote:

I get a bit of a kick out of knowing that Harold Ford Jr. recently married Emily Threlkeld, an attractive, young blond who is actually hotter than the woman in the attack ad. Of course, those who hate Ford now claim that the new Mrs. Ford is a beard as HFJ is now apparently a homosexual. What’s next, I wonder. Can’t wait to read the rumors about him and the livestock.

My mother always said that if you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.

So…