Let's not be ridiculous.

A) E.J. Graff and others are upset over the existence of stereotypes.

Does all comedy need to abandon any use of stereotypes? Should the writers of the Simpson's apologize for reinforcing stereotypes about desi Kwiki-Mart owners? Should we all feel bad for laughing at Futurama's Judge Whitey? Should we start a letter writing campaign over Arrested Development's garishly dressed homosexuals? Come on! Stereotypes are the building blocks of humour.

B) The more disingenuous critics want you to believe that they get the joke, but they're worried that others might not. Is this why every news program feels the need to explain the joke to us as if we were schoolchildren? And just who are these "others"? I have yet to see any evidence that some Joe Schmo missed the joke and truly believed that Obama would hang a portrait of the Taliban leader in the Whitehouse.

This is why the stereotype of liberals as paternalistic, elitist meddlers has such wide currency. We really are a bunch of jerks.

C) Narcisists will go on about how the New Yorker's real crime is that the cartoon is not funny. This line of argument could not be more irrelevant.

D) Some have said (progressivebulldog in an earlier post); "it's funny, but what does publishing it accomplish?"

First of all; why should comedy accomplish anything?

Secondly; this satirical cartoon has accomplished plenty. The manufactured outrage over this cartoon has revealed an outrageous level of intellectual dishonesty from E.J. Graff, and Chris Matthews, and Obama, and McCain... the list, sadly, seems to be endless. The only real surprise is that Al Sharpton hasn't managed to stick his nose in this and threaten a New Yorker boycott.

- diggyG

"Let's face it, comedy's a dead artform. Now tragedy, that's funny!"