Japanese blogger pantomime points out that Newsweek's flag-in-the trash cover is credited to photo illustrator William Duke.
According to Duke's website, he "has been recognized for his conceptual and problem solving abilities,as well as the artistic integrity of his photo illustrations", winning several industry awards. His clients include Time, Esquire, and the New York Times Magazine.
His site also features a portfolio of his past work, including this picture of Uncle Sam menacing the globe (and, in particular, the Middle East), while the rest of the world points its fingers at him. The red stripes on his hat are the splatter of thrown tomatoes:
 |
FOLLOW-UP:
Reader David Wright of Dave's Wagon finds the possible inspiration for the Uncle Sam picture.
25 comments:
Reminds me of the shirt Homer Simpson wears when he visits Brazil.
Posted by Dave
Dear lord! Uncle Sam is actually Leminy Snicket!
Posted by Sairai_x
Look like things are getting back to normal after the blogswarm. Although your hit are way up from where they were.
Posted by jwbrown1969
Well, nothing lasts forever...
Posted by GaijinBiker
It takes a few days for the second wave of people to catch up with the details of what's going on. You probably ain't seen nothing yet, Gaijinbiker! Your exposé has been linked in all sorts of threads where more and more people are becoming aware of how the MSM denigrates Americans.
(For example, here , here, here, here, here, here, and of course, at the biggies like FreeRepublic, LGF, etc. – too many to list.)
The sleeping Gulliver awakes and growls as he tears loose from the silly Lilliputians.
Thank you for bringing us the latest on the photo illustrator behind Newsweek's 2/2/05 trashcan cover, William Duke. His site - "recognized for his... problem solving abilities..." !!! He's part of the problem! A small little cog in the MSM wheel of hate.
Posted by BR
This expose' is an awesome example of one of the things I truly love about capitalism; when someone's pathetic enough to bite the hand that feeds them, that same hand gets a chance to give them a well-deserved slap across the face.
Definitely boycott Newsweek!
--Cliff
Posted by Cliff
Question for BR: why shouldn't the media "denigrate" Americans? Are there any other people and countries that shouldn't be denigrated? What about France? Qatar? Ahmad Chalabi? Are they ok, or can we criticize them? Does the White House, or perhaps Donald Rumself himself, publish a convenient list of who we can say bad things about and who we can't?
And Cliff: Since Bush doesn't read the newspaper, why should you? boycott, indeed.
Posted by bunkerbuster
from the ``Who Knew?" files:
Albert Einstein on Iraq:
``A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.''
Posted by bunkerbuster
...bunker, Bush is the most underestimated man of his time and probably any. You must be beginning to realize this by now, or are you? If Bush is simple it is refreshing because it is only complicated and decadent elites who hate the country and culture which created and most supports them. This is not about treason, nor about censorship. Newsweek has the right to extend the left's tradition of loving those who would hate them and the reverse. If they can make money selling out America, that is also their right. However, those of us who think that the stakes are too high this time to let the "useful idiots" go unchecked, have the right to protest them in this and other formats. I applaud Gaijin Biker once more. I saw the same Newsweek on the stands in Tokyo and didn't react at all, so jaded by this kind of thing, but I am wide awake again... I voted for Clinton twice and Al Gore and when Bush won I thought it was a disaster. On 9/11 I was in my apartment on 105th street which is fairly distant from the Towers, but I will never forget that awful smoke, and the posters that sprouted up on telephone poles showing loved ones, obviously dead, family members hoping that instead they were lost and wondering the street. And the firehouse around the corner with ten or so pictures of dead firefighters. And the mosque up there surrounded by police officers of all races protecting their fellow citizens who might have been targeted becasue of their religion (and were not). Bush's resolve in the face of our enemies and their supporters in our own press has been something quite amazing, and will be considered historic, whether you think he is a rube or not.
Posted by tokyobk
Anti M: what "resolve" are you talking about as regards Bush? Resolve would have been sticking to pursuing Al Qaeda's leaders and the jihadist terror networks tentacles in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Resolve would be insisting that any war worth fighting is worth paying for. But Bush didn't do that: instead he cut taxes as a cynical political expedient, even while wildly misunderestimating the costs of the Iraq fiasco and while having no plan whatsoever of how to get the money to pay for it. No, the only resolve George W. Bush has is getting and keeping power for himself and his cronies.
As for W being a rube: it is an abiding mystery to me whether Bush is as dumb as he appears. While we know Bush's academic achievements are nil and we know that he has trouble forming sentences and thoughts and answering simple questions in public, we also know there are people like Anti M who say things like: "it is only complicated and decadent elites who hate the country and culture which created and most supports them.'' Indeed, it could be necessary to pretend to be a simpleton in order to win the votes of people like Anti M. This brings up an interesting question as regards 2008. Bill Frist is a medical doctor, obviously way too educated to be trusted. John McCain was a fighter pilot and exhibits signs of logical thought development that the "Anti M vote" may find threatening. How are the Republicans going to find a candidate that has the, um, stupidity, to fill Bush's shoes?
Posted by bunkerbuster
I like McCain a lot, I like First and I love GW Bush. Oh, I am a registered Democrat. But for your question, I think the Republicans can run anybody, and Dean and Hillary will make sure of that.
Posted by tokyobk
Cliff, re yours: "when someone's pathetic enough to bite the hand that feeds them…" My thought exactly when I read this line at William Duke's site, bio section:
"Duke lives with his wife in Sonoma County, California,
where he enjoys gardening and winemaking."
If he lived under Islamic rule, there'd be no yuppie winemaking, much less wine drinking.
Drinking alcohol is forbidden (Koran 2:219; 4:43; 5:93-94; 16:67)
Posted by BR
...though BR Duke probably is not a Muslim. Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International is, and he is, as I have mentioned here before, a collector of and writer about fine wine. So, Zakaria is quite at home in New York, as he should be. Just wish he had a little more feeling for the country he immigrated to and in which chose to be educated. By the way, he reminds me of Rushdie, always bitching about the West and orientalism. Where did he run and hide when he had a Fatwa come down on his ass? The only person actually killed in that event was the translator here in Tokyo who translated the Satanic Verses as part of his lifelong effort to share the wonders of Islamic culture with the Japanese. No lie.
Posted by tokyobk
TokyoBK, likes Frist, loves Bush and belongs to a political party that is, by definition and practice, opposed to both. I'd be inclined to say this is either transparently disingenuous or moronic or both, but I'd rather simply ask for an explanation, please...
Posted by bunkerbuster
So if Zakaria were a Baptist from Kentucky, his analysis of the problems facing the U.S. would somehow have more meaning? Given all the whining and self-pity we hear from right-wingers about media bias, you'd think they'd be just a little self-conscious about their own boatload of cant.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Who should we trust to tell the truth about what's going on in America and the world: People who see the unique circumstances of the U.S. as an opportunity to meet the highest standards of honesty, sacrifice and reciprocity, or people who respond to criticism of political leaders and policies by declaring with immense self-satisfaction that America is better than the worst?
BR writes: ``If he lived under Islamic rule, there'd be no yuppie winemaking, much less wine drinking.''
This rhetorical formula and its frequent use by rightists of the fringe loudmouth variety (a large, growing faction) tells us a lot about their mentality. Confronted with criticism of the Bush administration's policies, their response is not to try to explain why the criticism may be invalid or to marshal rebutting facts. Rather, their impulse is to favorably compare the U.S. with the world's most abject tyrannies.
The strongest evidence that liberals like me love American ideals is that we believe the U.S. is fully capable of living up to the world's highest standards of fairness, responsibility and reciprocity. If right-wingers had real faith in American ideals, they too would compare the state of human rights and economic development in America to that of the greatest nations, rather than the least.
Posted by bunkerbuster
I see it as quite the opposite of moronic and in fact completely morally consistent to be a democrat, and I remind you I used the word "registered" as a time nuance, I registered when I was 18, and to have grown disenchanted with that party and have grown to admire Bush. 9/11 was the mugging that made me reconsider everything. Though, earlier, in grad school I got a hint of left wing pathology when my peers threw a party to celebrate the handing over of Hong Kong back to China, an anti-colonialism party. HK was stolen (though one might say stolen "fair and square" by the rules of the day) but to celebrate the handover from a liberal democracy to a totalitarian regime just because that regime is non-Western, struck me as really F'd up. I see the same reverse racism applied to the Middle East by the American left. On the other hand, I see an natural ease without a lowering of standards on the part of Bush which I admire greatly.
You make an interesting retort to my complaint about Zakaria. I see it this way: If he were an American baptist who moved to a Muslim country, stayed and prospered there, took advantage of things permissible there for example, in Saudi Arabia, owning servants for life, or marrying multiple wives, and then while editing a national magazine there trashed their country in the foreign edition, then I would see a parallel, and they would probably string him up by his gonads. Were just taking it out on a blog.
Posted by tokyobk
"If right-wingers had real faith in American ideals, they too would compare the state of human rights and economic development in America to that of the greatest nations, rather than the least."
I like this idea alot, and I would like you to kindly do so, because I want to know which country (of the non-broken down can't even provide potable water to its citizens variety) the liberals who love America would use to show a better alternative to America at this moment in world history? My guess is it would be France, so I suggest they move there where they will be welcomed almost as if they were German soldiers. But Bunker, Michael Moore is not giving half his money to a West or North European socialist government. He likes it in the USA, but maybe since his last movie was a big hit in Beirut, he would like to move there. Mind you, I think there are better places to live for some things than the US I just don't like the people who thrive in and because of America and then sell her out cold, hence this whole affair and this whole thread and sub-thread.
Posted by tokyobk
tokyobk: You have a dear friend. In fact your very best friend. You even could say you love the guy. But he quits his job, goes deeply into debt and becomes increasingly hostile with strangers who he perceives as disrespecting him. It gets so you can't go have a beer with the guy without him starting a fight with someone in the bar. Worse, many of his best friends give up and won't even speak to him anymore, let alone lend a hand when it looks like he might at last get his ass whipped seriously at the bar. Worst of all, the friends that do start to hang around with him have some very serious problems with self-control and hostility themselves. If you care about the guy, the best thing you can do is tell it to him straight, as his friend. You may even want to tell other people who know him that they should also be concerned about him and perhaps take some action to help him find his way back. Does this mean you hate him? Does this mean you are ``selling him out cold.'' Now, if your main concern is not your friend, but how your friend REFLECTS ON YOU as a person, you may want instead to tell your best friend and all the other people you know that he's the best guy on the planet, super, no problemo at all. You can rebut any doubters by proclaiming that your friend is so very much better than the dudes on death row, or the local crack dealers or the child molestors prowling the parks. You can also shout down anyone who would dare point out that your friends debts show no sign of slowing growth and that his fights are costing more and more both financial and in terms of his health. You could even accuse the people who point those facts out of "hating" your friend and selling him out. But just remember, the latter approach would be all about maintaining your own self-esteem, not your friend's well-being.
Posted by bunkerbuster
TokyoBK: ``9/11 was the mugging that made me reconsider everything.''
I hear this idea a lot on TV networks and read it often in major newspapers. I have never, not once, seen it explained or examined, let alone critiqued. I wonder why?
On Sept. 10, 2001, America was many times over the most powerful military nation the planet has ever known, facing no realistic military threats whatsoever to its survival or integrity as a nation.
On Sept. 12, 2001, America was many times over the most powerful military nation the planet has ever known, facing no realistic military threats whatsoever to its survival. In fact, the attacks significantly increased U.S. military strength by demonstrating and reinforcing the support of the world's democracies and by diminishing the antipathy some countries have for many years held toward the U.S.
People who were shocked by the simple fact of the attacks were ignorant. People who will be shocked the next time the U.S. is attacked by terrorists are ignorant.
Conventional military strength offers little or no protection against terrorism. 9/11 is a powerful demonstration of that fact. No amount of military aggression could have done would have prevented those attacks. Nothing. No amount of military aggression will prevent future terrorism.
Look at Russia and Chechnya, Britain and the IRA, Spain and ETA, Israel and Hamas. How can anyone look at these situations and then be shocked when something similar happens to the U.S.?
Some people like to say 9/11 was a "wake up call" but I'm wondering why we would put in stock in the judgment of people who were asleep in that manner on Sept. 10 and now claim to be wide awake.
Indeed, Sept. 11 brought some pretty big changes in America. Culturally and politically, the revenge fetish that is a key element of right-wing nationalism spread dramatically.
A lot of "happy go lucky" kind of liberals got into the revenge fetish thing themselves after 9/11. It's understandable, but wrong.
Al Qaeda are a tiny, pathetic band of fanatics who hold no territory and never have, have powerful enemies and rivals well within their own host culture and are, literally, intensely self-destructive as a military and political force. They got very, very lucky on 9/11, which isn't to say they, or their ilk, won't get lucky again--indeed they already have in Iraq (well, that may not have been luck, but it certainly wasn't due to their own clever strategic thinking).
9/11 should have changed nothing, except for the level of law enforcement scrutiny in key areas like aviation and border security. Then, as now, the most likely threat to the survival of the United States both politically and economically is the rise of China and the prospects for China to gain control of Taiwan and, then, southeast Asia, piece by piece.
But the response to China's threat--indeed a long term, slow-building one--cannot be military aggression. Rather continued and increasing diplomatic isolation would be the most effective persuader in China's case. But that course is lost. The U.S. has little or no leverage against China, now: witness Europe's plan to skip out of the arms embargo.
So when someone says 9/11 ``changed everything,'' be sure to ask them to be specific....
Posted by bunkerbuster
Bunker: I agree about China. My friends here in Tokyo laugh when I predict that one day there will be "ministries of safe and free trade" sent from China to every capital in Asia, first and foremost Tokyo, that wield more power over those Asian countries than their actual governments;It will be back to a thousand years ago when the Japanese had to pay tribute and recieve titles from the Chinese. I think it is not paranoid fantasy that one day a million Chinese citizens will arrive in Japan, supposedly to assist with the "Japanese request" for the modernization of Chinese characters or some Poland-invades-Germany type of excuse like that. I also think, and here you may agree, that N Korea, and Kim Jong Il is more of threat to the world than Saddam was, though in retrospect, Bush GHW wasn't so off the mark in his reaction to Kuwait. But I think that the way that the Korean war went unresolved, despite MacArthur's pleas to let him do the job even when China got involved, presents a lesson that is relavent in Iraq. That half resolve, unfortunately was the lasting legacy for the next Asian war.
I can only give my answer to why 9/11 and its aftermath changed me or allowed the inner red-stater to claim his voice. To sum up; I realized in spite of everything I was taught by my liberal, anti-war parents, that there are people and cultures with whom there is no reasoning. That the West and its liberal traditions and free market and tolerance cannot absorb the intolerant. That America has been too forgiving, too lax, too open and that without giving up our dream to be a haven for the huddled masses yearing to breathe free, we should defend a common sense of culture and purpose. That purpose runs counter to the current tide of Islamo-facism. I realized that there were people claiming to love America and only to want its improvement who would rather we fail abroad than Bush succeed at home, who would rather democracy fail abroad than Bush succeed at home. That many of those same people, often in positions of cultural influence, would rather construct some fantasy world multi-culture where every society is some version of our own than to deal with the fact that there are people for whom democary is a threat to their psychological existence. Is there any reason why middle class and educated Saudis, should want to crash airplanes into buildings? That the left still sees evil in the form of a white Chirstian man when in fact the current form of facism most threatening to the liberal West is most likely personified by a young angry Muslim. That instead of dealing with the discomfort that that produces in us as people who like to see good and evil as randomly distributed, we make up some fantasy of a tolerant jihad. Lastly, as you already know, I have a special distaste for the Chomsky, Zakaria crowd, who sit in their cozy towers, so angry at the society which created and adores them, and so enamored with the people whose traditions have no room for people such as themselves. I could go on and on...I'll just close with the proven success Bush is in understanding the psychology of the Arab Middle East. He ignored that awful robber of his own people's happiness (and money) Yassir Arafat. And now, he is welcoming of the new government and supportive. Why? because, ultimately Bush wants to wage a lasting Peace and there is no Democrat who would have had the temerity to do it this way, however much Clinton wanted to go down as an historical president, getting the Arabs and the Jews to shake hands in a photo op.
Posted by tokyobk
...not sure of the technology or the protocal for linking, but please check out the current national review online www.nationalreview.com for the latest from the wise (and somewhat Charlton Heston looking) Victor Hansen. I think VDH's personal site is linked here by GaijinBiker. It is, at a level I could never reach, everything I have been trying to say by the disaffected elites who profit from, and yet scorn, The US.
Posted by tokyobk
TokyoBK: I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that your reaction to 9/11 was to see an opportunity to vent your "inner red-state" emotions. I think we'd be a lot better off if U.S. policies were based on likelihood of success rather than insatiable resentment and revenge fetishism.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Tokyobk, thank you for the VDH reference. Here's the link , linked :)
(I was a blog virgin when CBSgate hit, but soon learned the URL thingie. There may be an easier way, but here's how I do it:
Type <
and right next to it (but a space before href) a href="
then paste in the URL address starting with http
then type ">
then type a title or word which will show up on screen to click on
then type < / a > (NO spaces, but I had to type it this way here)
Don't use any spaces, except for that one space before href. It was a little difficult to show it in plain text here, because the site software would automatically change my example into a link.
You can test if your link worked in the preview mode before posting.)
Posted by BR
Tokyobk – see mine re Fareed Zakaria in the "America is Dead" thread at 5/28/2005 12:03:44 AM and on Tabassum Zakaria of Reuters, right after it. If you have further info, would you post it there? I've only recently (May 18th) become aware of him and am reading his past articles in Newsweek. You are more familiar with his writing.
Posted by BR
Post a Comment