It's a shame that people like you, and I am sure you are well meaning, don't relize that you only exacerbate racial tensions when you artificially create straw man issues. What don't you understand? The cover satirically deals with the Muslim/terrorist Obama distortions, NOT his being an African-American! Do you not see the burning flag? The picture of Bin Laden?

There is no racial boogeyman here; just you trying to create one. For thr last time . . . The New Yorker is using political satire to expose the idiocy of right-wing falsehoods. Now admit you are wrong and move on.

Actually, I have subscribed to the New Yorker for many years, and am a huge fan of Hendrik Hertzberg, which is why I am so disappointed in both. But, although I am an immigrant, I am not black. Ask that black friend of yours what he thinks. Of course it's funny for white folk.

Your expriment is an arbitrary exercise in irrelevency at best. What on earth does a racist joke have to do with the New Yorker cover? Unfortunately, you can't discern the difference between satire to make a political point and a racist joke. The cover is only racist if it was meant to seriously portray the Obamas as Muslim terrorists. Clearly it wasn't. Obviously, the "smart and talented" staff at the New Yorker sought (as I said) to highlight the absurdity and objectionable falsehoods that are being disseminated about the Obamas.

The New Yorker is not targeting "strollers passing a newstand". You clearly are clueless about the New Yorker and it's historically irreverent, satirical covers.

Now surely you have something better to do then go on and on creating a racial divide where there is none and attacking a very progressive publication where, I assure you, 99.9% of the staffers including Hertzberg are probably going to vote for Obama. People are rightly sick and tired of living in this absurdly puritanical politically correct world. It's satire, it's very funny, period.

Since we disagree, I propose an experiment.

Find a good racist joke: Earl Butz had a good one, see tafkac.org .

Now, tell it to a black friend, not the janitor in your building or the fellow behind the bar at the club, but someone who is your social equal. Be sure to add "No Offense" at the end to show how sympathetic you are to minority sensibilities.

Then ask for an opinion on whether you ought to use the joke the next time you speak at the Chamber of Commerce.

The cover is offensive in part because it is presented without explanation or any link to the article within. There is no way a stroller passing a newstand could see that it is supposed to be humour. It simply is not funny.

Neither are loose shoes, by the way. If Hertzberg had a black friend, he would know that by now.

What a preposterous comment and let's add ignorant as well since you have no idea how many of Herzberg's friends are African-American do you?

What the New Yorker cover does is highlight the absurdity and pathetic idiocy of those who focus on fist bumps, last names and other irrelevant garbage and lies.

It's a shame that you don't get that. It's satire, it's funny, it's the New Yorker; hardly a right-wing rag. Now apologize for being a knee-jerk reactionary and get over it.

The issue here is whether or not a racist joke is ever in good taste. The "humor" here only works because Obama and his wife are black. I assume that the editor of the New Yorker and such luminaries as Herzberg simply have no black acquaintances. Imagine the squeal if, as suggested here, they were to portray Bush and Cheney as Hitler and Goebbels. But they would never do so, not in their white and wealthy world, however liberal.