Obama New Yorker Cover

Uh oh:

This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

So, apparently, it's "satire." Trouble is, we can count on the media not to play it that way. They will probably raise a big fuss over it, and the net effect will simply be a further spreading of the rumors the cover is pretending to "debunk." Apparently, the satirists at the New Yorker weren't prescient enough to see that it would play out that way, or didn't care.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

95 Comments

Eh Isn't the

New Yorker a "High Brow" magazine, of which most of the readers can probably appreciate satire (unlike republicans which reminds me I need to go mess with a rightie's 'patriot site' today...

by Sanguine Giant 2008-07-13 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Isn't the

Pretend it wasn't The New Yorker. Pretend it was The Weekly Standard. Still funny? Pretend it was the New York Post. How about now?

Now consider that the article referenced by the cover is written by the New Yorker's current Washington correspondent, former correspondent for The New Republic, a man who wrote a scathing article that portrayed Obama as a shameless opportunist in both this article and one he wrote for TNR back in March of last year.

Still feel benign to you?

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Isn't the

Let's pretend that it is actually a cover of John McCain with his wife Cindy dressed as a preening vapid beauty queen and him dressed as a stereotypical Vietnam war vet taking money from lobbyists and wearing an adult diaper.

Would that be funny? Would it be clever? Would it be acceptable coming from The New Yorker?

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:29PM | 0 recs
Get a sense of humor

isn't that what you tell us?

by catfish2 2008-07-13 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Get a sense of humor

I have a sense of humor, that isn't funny. But that's to be expected, the only thing ever funny in the New Yorker is the occasional Jack Handey column.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Get a sense of humor

Look, I posted one below of Ahmedinejad and Obama in a Larry Craig-esque pose. THAT is funny, even if it's still offensive. The other thing isn't funny at all, though. It's just stating the premise of the joke without delivering a punchline.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 11:26PM | 0 recs
And Bernie Mac's sister, mome are whores

is funny. Heh.

by catfish2 2008-07-14 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: And Bernie Mac's sister, mome are whores

It was a funny joke. Not a fresh joke by any means, but an amusing one. We've seen stuff like this for a long, long time. Almost as long as comedy has existed. Vaudeville had the role of the angry, unfaithful wife. Benny Hill was completely built on that sort of thing. Ditto a lot of Monty Python. It doesn't make it right, but it is by no means inordinately offensive. It's just that it happened to be performed at a benefit for someone who a lot of people happen to have a vested interest in portraying as sexist.

Meanwhile, that doesn't change a thing about the cover in question. I saw a beautiful comment at TPMCafe on the subject:

The New Yorker's take-away message is: Unlike the hicks who actually believe this crap, our readers are sophisticated enough to know we are merely engaging in naughtily satirical fun.
At a swoop, the magazine has stereotyped the Obamas, the hicks, and its own elitist readers.
The trifecta.
Satire that is indistinguishable from what it purports to satirize fails as satire.

I can't put it any better than that.

by vcalzone 2008-07-14 07:06AM | 0 recs
It was not a funny joke, it reinforced stereotypes

just as the cover does.

by catfish2 2008-07-14 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Isn't the

Shocking--from a magazine that's supposedly left of center.

I kmow it's satire--but in very poor taste.

by esconded 2008-07-13 04:31PM | 0 recs
The difference is

that the Weekly Standard would be endorsing the smears, rather than mocking them.

by JJE 2008-07-13 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Isn't the

It's not supposed to be benign, not by any stretch of the imagination. The intent is clearly to provoke a response, with the hope that people will see the forest through the trees.  Look at the cartoon carefully.  You have Barack dressed as a Muslim, Michelle with a big  afro and a large automatic weapon, while the American flag burns in the fireplace and there's a painting of bin laden on the wall.

Can there really be any doubt that TNY is making fun of people who think these things are true? Michelle is a militant black woman who hates America!  Barack is a Muslim! They burn the flag for fun!  They love bin Laden! Please.

Clearly, they're skewering idiots who believe this kind of crap.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-13 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Isn't the

Well, somehow I doubt those people will mind, because this is exactly like the kind of thing they would create themselves if they had the talent and creativity. I expect to see this in at least a few local businesses down here.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
No.

 It's disgusting.

by missliberties 2008-07-13 07:40PM | 0 recs
I know satire is supposed to be edgy,

but I really, really dislike that.

by sricki 2008-07-13 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I know satire is supposed to be edgy,
I think this one was also meant to be satire (same artist):

I think I'm beginning to understand his definition of edgy.
by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I know satire is supposed to be edgy,
Check his archives.
It would appear he also made a picture of Clinton with a sad face wearing both Mets and Yankees caps that showed up a week before the 2000 election.
by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:56PM | 0 recs
Wow, that is not cool... n/t

by sricki 2008-07-13 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, that is not cool... n/t

Not cool?  Perhaps not.  But I'm glad I live in a country where we let people be that crass.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-13 07:03PM | 0 recs
I'm glad they have the freedom

to do it, but I wish they had the taste to refrain.

by sricki 2008-07-13 07:10PM | 0 recs
You and me both, my friend

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-07-13 08:01PM | 0 recs
i was thinking the...

exact same thing.

by canadian gal 2008-07-13 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

Let's also talk about the article, which is every bit as bitter and negative as you'll find anywhere. The New Yorker wants to be The New Republic, it would seem.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

you know, i read the article, and while i certainly wouldn't call it complimentary, nothing in it really pissed me off.  as someone who used to live in chicago, i found it absolutely fascinating.  it really didn't change my support for obama.  in fact, it reaffirmed my confidence that obama is an incredibly capable politician and will certainly win this thing. :)

the cover on the other hand, is inexcusable...

by elie 2008-07-13 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

Perhaps it was just me, but I found that any positive outlook of Obama was eclipsed by the way it tried to directly reinforce the current Republican narrative, that Obama is nothing but a pandering politician who will do anything to reach office.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 05:11PM | 0 recs
That narrative isn't current.

Anyone who has known about Barack for more than just this primary knows that he is a pandering politician willing to do anything to reach office.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That narrative isn't current.

See, the fact that you buy into it tells me all I need to know. If there was an ounce of objectivity, you wouldn't care.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 06:12PM | 0 recs
Don't feed the PUMA trolls. eom

by Geekesque 2008-07-13 06:35PM | 0 recs
Why is it that that so called 'left'

is doing this?

Is the PUMA crowd delighted? And who are they?

Who was spreading rumors about Obama's madrassas schooling? Bob Kerry and 'others' on the left.

This is so offensive.

Perhaps it is time for Barack to come out with a public statement that once and for all disputes this garbage.

by missliberties 2008-07-13 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

the cover on the other hand, is inexcusable...
Yes it is inexcusable. It feeds into a stereotype of Obama. I too read the article and thought it was fair. Most here know I don't care for Obama but this is my honest opinion in reference to the cover and article.

by soyousay 2008-07-13 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

The phony story tomorrow would be Obama trying to kick someone's butt lol not the satire .

by lori 2008-07-13 04:25PM | 0 recs
trying to sell mags

I hope the New Yorker sees a drop in subscriptions from this stunt.

by highgrade 2008-07-13 04:32PM | 0 recs
Oh come on, Where's your sense of humor?

by dbrown04 2008-07-13 04:35PM | 0 recs
What's so humorous about it? n/t

by sricki 2008-07-13 04:42PM | 0 recs
Irony not your thing, I guess,

by dbrown04 2008-07-13 04:54PM | 0 recs
It's not just ironic,

it's disturbing and unnecessary. It has too much shock value to be funny.

by sricki 2008-07-13 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

by dbrown04 2008-07-13 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

The cover is wrong for a lot of reasons.

Maybe its a joke and when you turn the page it will read 'I'm just messin' with you.'

by feelfree 2008-07-13 04:35PM | 0 recs
Well, it didn't show him with one testicle

If it had I imagine you'd think it was great.

by JJE 2008-07-13 04:59PM | 0 recs
LMAO. Oh Snap! LOL!!!

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 05:30PM | 0 recs
If it is real

it is in poor taste.

by Coldblue 2008-07-13 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

My first reaction, when I saw a smaller version, was revulsion. Now that I've had a chance to look at a larger image and study it, I've changed my mind.

It succeeds in being satire only because it includes so many different smears. That makes it obvious that they are spoofing the smears. If it only showed Obama and Michelle fist-bumping in the Oval Office it would have been different. Or, if Obama had been in regular dress and the picture of Osama had been missing.

The biggest problem is that it appears on the cover of an issue that contains an Obama hit piece. I don't know what other articles about Obama might be in this same issue. Is there one debunking the urban myths shown on the cover?

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-13 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

Nope, the New Yorker cartoons have always been non sequiters in terms of the content. But see, the problem is that the satire will fly right above the heads of the media and most of the public IMO. As I wrote above, I think the end result will just be a further spreading of the various smears, or maybe just a vague sense that there's something wrong or "un-American" about Obama.

by animated 2008-07-13 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

This came from the same artist in 2000.

Check the date. That's right, October 30. One week before the election. That wasn't meant to be damaging at all, I'm sure.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover
October 11, 2004.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2871/119403m1co0.jpg">
by vcalzone 2008-07-13 05:01PM | 0 recs
Um, that was the year

the Yankees and Mets were in the World Series.  Picking who to root for was a political problem for every NY pol.

by JJE 2008-07-13 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, that was the year

OK, then I'm sure we'll see absolutely no unflattering images of Obama or the Democrats in October of this year. It's just a coincidence.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 05:09PM | 0 recs
lol wut

What point are you trying to make?  I just pointed out that the relevant context for that cover undermines the notion that the New Yorker has some cover-illustration policy of hurting Democrats right before elections.

by JJE 2008-07-13 06:51PM | 0 recs
2004 cover

That cemented Kerry's elitist image.  Does the New Yorker really prefer Republican presidents?

I'm just wondering.

by esconded 2008-07-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
I doubt it

Hendrik Hertzberg, for example, is pretty anti-GOP.

The Bush/Kerry cover is worse than the innocuous Clinton one.  It looks like this particular cartoonist likes to depict the candidates the way one would picture them if one knew nothing but media soundbite personality stuff.

by JJE 2008-07-13 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I doubt it

Still doesn't explain that proudly "look at those crazy muslims" image above. Take a look for yourself, I'm pretty sure I put a link to his available images on that site. See if you see any that redeem him.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, that was the year

The 'Hillary as Yankee fan' produced tons of lols among Republicans. I'm sure LatinoVoter here thought it was hilarious.  It's not a joke that makes any sense in any other context than to smear her as a carpetbagger.

They wouldn't make the joke with Giuliani.  It wouldn't make any sense and it wouldn't occur to them.

by Jess81 2008-07-13 07:53PM | 0 recs
okay, but that particular cover

was about the subway series.  It wasn't about carpetbaggery.  It was just about an NY pol not knowing who to root for.

Also, Giuliani was no longer in the race at that point.  It was Lazio and Hillary had it in the bag in October 2000.

by JJE 2008-07-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: okay, but that particular cover

I know - I'm a New Yorker; I was just tossing out Giuliani's name.

by Jess81 2008-07-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: When Hillary

Nono, my point is that all the images I posted on this page are from the same artist, and they're only SOME of the ones that you can buy on a T-shirt. I'm saying that this is not an innocent mistake, this is a deliberate attempt to paint Obama with these smears to play into conservatives' sweaty palms. Just like that flattering portrayal of Bush or that pic of Clinton.

Also, maybe it wasn't an issue up there, but down here, I remember thinking that Clinton's problem was that she was being perceived as not a real New Yorker. Wasn't that an issue back then? The idea that she just moved there to run for Senate?

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: When Hillary

Wow. Just found another one. There ARE plenty of Bush, too, but nothing quite like this. Ahmadinejad, and thanks to the current cover, we know exactly who that sandaled foot is supposed to be.

This one is actually kinda funny, but it's still pretty offensive.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 10:55PM | 0 recs
Meh, parody

I don't see what's wrong with making fun of the wingnut smears.  It's ham-handed, to be sure, but it's mocking the smears, not endorsing them.

by JJE 2008-07-13 04:58PM | 0 recs
Fuck it

Let's just make the "white males only" rule explicit, and save everyone a lot of heartache.

I'm ok with people being critical of the man. If the cover depicted a sleazy machine pol, that's opinion. If it depicted a twirling flip-flopper, ok fine, if that's what you believe. Even an undercover Republican, right? Draw him riding an Elephant.

The people at the New Yorker are smart, ad smart people have a myriad of ways to express disapproval. WHY PICK THIS ONE? What I see on this cover, sadly, is that disapproval represented as "they're too black". Pictures of my parents in the 60's would have looked almost exactly like that one (minus the AK-47).

Good thing I'll never run for President, because then I'd have to pretend I've always been proud of America, when right now I am fairly close to tears.

by Neef 2008-07-13 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fuck it

Wow, that's not what I got at all.  I've been a subscriber for years, and it seems quite clear to me what they point is:  "if you view the Obama's this way, you're a fool, and now let us poke this stick in your eye."

They picked this one because they wanted to point out how ridiculous the smears are.  I have no idea why you think The New Yorker is suddenly engaging in is some sort of overt racism.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-13 05:25PM | 0 recs
I'm getting tired

of parsing "not racism". Not tired in the annoyed sense, just tired. The cover feels like an indictment of people with afros.

I certainly wouldn't start some anti-Imus-like "shut the NYT down" group. But I'm also entitled to how I feel.

by Neef 2008-07-13 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm getting tired

Not suggesting you aren't entitled to how you feel.  You are, and so I am.  I don't agree with your perspective - simple as that. I think the cartoon and it's title "The Politics of Fear", make a strong statement about racism.  You don't agree with me, and that's fine.  But if you don't want to engage in a discussion, I'd respectfully suggest you might be in the wrong place.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-13 07:03PM | 0 recs
Sometimes

rather than a discussion, you just need a day away from the blogs (which is what I took). I couldn't really have discussed the issue objectively anyway at the time.

I do agree that this is a place for discussion, and that's why I value it. In retrospect my comment was pure venting, and I'd remove it if I could.

by Neef 2008-07-14 06:21AM | 0 recs
Lay off the New Yorker

In no way is it a right-wing rag, it's trying to be funny and satirical; Lizza's article was interesting to say the least and he's not a right-wing tool.  I've got the sense that he likes Obama.  That article makes Obama out to pretty darn intelligent if you ask me, sufficiently ruthless, and dispels any notion of naivete (notice McCain has dropped that word from his description of Obama?).

by Blazers Edge 2008-07-13 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Lay off the New Yorker

Intelligent isn't what bothers me, it's that it makes him out to be precisely what the Republicans want everyone to believe that he is. A pandering, lying politician. John McCain, on the other hand.... If Lizza has shown just as much coverage to McCain's NUMEROUS instances of pandering and lying and in just as straightforward a tone, then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he has not, perhaps you should NOT.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 05:16PM | 0 recs
Nothing wrong with the cover

It is satire and is making fun of the "smears." And I don't know if that is suppose to be the White House, it could be the Obama mansion for all you and the author of the quotes knows. Surely, anyone who would make a bootleg Presidential seal would surely have a bootleg presidential rug made too.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing wrong with the cover

Must you use this an another exucse to bash Obama. Get. A. Life.  Support Hillary and follow her great lead. Vote for Obama, or if not, go to your friends at PUMA.

by smgreene 2008-07-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
I'm not your slave

to boss around and tell me what I must do or where I must go.

Maybe you should take your own advice and get a life and not stalk me.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not your slave

FYI, the type of remark in your signature is all that stands between this cover and a lawsuit or boycott. You've got no room to talk at all.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 06:15PM | 0 recs
You recognize the quote, right?

His sig line is a direct quote, except the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

by dbrown04 2008-07-13 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You recognize the quote, right?

Yeah - Barack Obama is Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton is Monica Lewinsky.  Real Rush Limbaugh shit.

by Jess81 2008-07-13 08:01PM | 0 recs
My sig is a quote from

Barack's spiritual guru of twenty years the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I just changed Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and instead of making it about black people (like Wright did) I made it about the FISA bill.

So if you want to file suit against someone or start a boycott let me know and I'll Google map you to Obama's church or the good Reverend's mansion in Tinly Park, IL.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: My sig is a quote from

Yeah.  Um.  Changing the subject and the direct object in a sentence in no way changes it substantial meaning....

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: My sig is a quote from

Wasn't right when Wright said it, but it's doubly wrong when you say it, because you have not chosen it as a throwaway line to get applause, you have made it your signature. And done it in a way to showcase your "I'm too cool for racism" racism. Bravo.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Nice double standard.

When Wright said it it was a throwaway line. When I use it it isn't a throwaway line but an example of my racism.

Using your logic then Wright is racist and so is Barack because the only people who are friends with and use racists as a moral compass is another racist.

BTW if such negativity can be inferred about the quote why do you figure Barack never stood up and condemned it? Why was there no apology to the Clintons for being victimized by Wright's racist rant against Bill Clinton on Christmas day of '07.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-13 08:33PM | 0 recs
I apologize to the Clintons

for anything Jeremiah Wright ever said.  Does that make you happy?  Now, I demand you apologize to Barack Obama for when James Carville said he had one testicle.

by JJE 2008-07-13 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice double standard.

That isn't my logic at all.

My logic is that Wright used it as a reference in front of an urban, mostly black, Chicago audience. He's well known for using popular culture references, so to use the phrase Ridin' Dirty would have been a big laugh line.

You are using it ironically to deliberately reference the song because it is an example of the kind of phrase from African-American culture that I can only presume makes you chortle. And it's especially offensive because that terrible black minister used it when talking about the Clintons. You are using it because you want to be a racist douchebag, but you know we'd get offended if you really said what you meant, and you know we'd be right. So instead, you use a phrase like that to "confront us with it" and that way, hopefully, make you not seem like such an ignorant fool when you say it.

That being said, if you ARE Latino, you should contact John McCain. They've been looking for Latinos who really and truly wonp't vote Obama because he's black.

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 10:40PM | 0 recs
LMAO.

Never seen someone reach for so many straws in such few words.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-14 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: LMAO.

Yeah, I was exhausted last night.

by vcalzone 2008-07-14 06:27PM | 0 recs
Not a stalker

But, I do find the slave reference offensive since I am a black female who has recently traced my ancestors.  Also, I have never written to you or about you before.

by smgreene 2008-07-14 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing wrong with the cover

Don't feed the trolls.  Particularly this one - running around with a sig that's supposed to be about Hillary and Barack having oral sex?

by Jess81 2008-07-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing wrong with the cover

But they're so cute, the way they waddle over to you and quack away at each other...

by vcalzone 2008-07-13 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

I take the New Yorker, have for forty years, it's one of my favorite mags. Haven't read Lizza's article yet but disabuse yourself of the idea he's neutral. He's not. He was dumping on Clinton during the primaries. I'll have to see if he's now dumping on Clinton. The cover is inflammatory although it was almost certainly meant as satire.

by ottovbvs 2008-07-13 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

Those saying it's satire are correct.  The problem, the subjects of the satire won't even realize that fact.  

You can be sure that cover will be up at all the typical Obama hate sites, front page stuff, saying "see finally someone else sees!"  

The sad part is they won't even realize the point the artist, the ridiculous nature of their  multitude of claims against Obama.  

The problem with satire it requires people pay attention or be smart enough to realize the point being made.  

I haven't gone to noquarter or hillaryis44 yet this evening, but am highly confident they won't even get the fact that the joke is on them.  

by nextgen 2008-07-13 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama New Yorker Cover

The joke is on us, because as we call this satire, many voting Americans will call this fact and believe that New Yorker readers believe that too.

by shalca 2008-07-13 07:02PM | 0 recs
Well?

I'm glad I live in a country where people like this artist can do what they do, however crass it is.

Folks, the solution to bad speech isn't to freak out and try to shut them up.  The solution to bad speech is good speech.

I have no interest in buying this magazine, but I've never bought it before either.  I find it distasteful at best, but they're free to publish it.

I won't lift a finger to silence them either.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-13 07:05PM | 0 recs
Does that mean you think

the cartoon rings true!

One would think you would want to speak out against such rank falsehoods.

by missliberties 2008-07-13 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Does that mean you think

I referred to it as "crass" and said I had no interest in buying it.  I think that conveyed my thoughts pretty well.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-14 04:30AM | 0 recs
I like reading my New Yorker..having said that I

agree with the premise of the diarist is making..however on the flip side, are we afraid of the cover because it is also a reflection of our prejudices? just a thought..

by louisprandtl 2008-07-13 07:49PM | 0 recs
Personally...

I wouldn't use the word 'afraid' unless I'm talking specifically about electoral damage, and it doesn't reflect my prejudices.  You?

by Jess81 2008-07-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
My point was beyond the nearest General
election...the question was more rhetorical I guess..I'm not sure that we ourselves understand or can identify every form of prejudices knowingly or unknowingly that we can perpetuate..In that context the question was are we afraid that the cartoon would damage our candidate for the GE or is that a ruse for a broader reluctance to face our prejudices whatever form it might be...
 
by louisprandtl 2008-07-13 08:08PM | 0 recs
BTW if anybody have an objection please substitute

the word "We" to "me" or "my own"..it's more of my own self introspection, thought aloud ..nothing more, nothing less.

by louisprandtl 2008-07-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re:

I'm exhausted and want to sleep and can't because my roommates are fucking noisy.  Ignore my grumpiness.

by Jess81 2008-07-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Don't worry..your points are well made and

well taken..I myself had a bad day, in fact a bad year thus far..

by louisprandtl 2008-07-13 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't worry..your points are well made and

Well it's half over.

by Jess81 2008-07-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
haha..good point..

by louisprandtl 2008-07-13 08:45PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads