I'm shocked!

It was the powerful that they so often mocked.

I used to idolize MAD in the 70s and 80s. It really affected the way I looked at the world, but I haven't read it much since they got bought by Time-Warner or whomever it was, so maybe I'm just late in understanding their current mindset.

I learned a lot from Mad in the 60's. But it definitely is not the same company today. When William Gaines died so did Mad.

"In order to raise public awareness I handed out ten thousand copies of this pamphlet I found offensive!"

And thanks for helping to bring attention to this thread!

Will that increase or decrease the number of people who see the graphic? Will that increase or decrease the number of people who click through to chortle or complain? Will that increase or decrease their advertising rates?

They are in the publicity-seeking business and that is how they generate revenue (unlike your thread).

It's impossible to register one's offense without bringing attention to the offender. That's not a reason not to express one's offense.

Maybe if you had read almost every issue from the 70s and 80s, you'd better understand why this upsets me.

I guess this would be a bad time to also tell you there's no real Santa Clause either.

They've always been pubescent in their humor, but this is grotesque - and when did they spin to the right, anyway?

It's their schtick. If someone isn't offended they are trying hard enough. Manning is currently in the news so it's his turn.

She's a human being and her gender has been used to score juvenile - and yes, political - points.

Would it be acceptable for them to do the same based on someone's race? How about a physical disability? Should we admire their chutzpah for that?

I read MAD when I was a kid - many, many years ago - I seem to recall it was smarter than this - that could be because of distance. That said, I get juvenile humor even if I don't find it amusing. This goes way beyond schtick. It's nasty.

So, yeah - they achieved their goal and offended many, many people. They just didn't do it by "butchering" the sacred cow of Manning's actions. They did it by attacking her for what she is and that's wrong.

defense after good people struggled for years to not be denied security clearances or admission to the services. Please remember that the reason gays were barred from service is because they were deemed mentally unbalanced and as such they were labeled security risks. Now, in the aftermath of the biggest security breach case in US history the defense team pleads for a lighter sentence claiming gender identity issues left Manning in such turmoil he couldn't be held to the same standard as everyone else.

We can debate until our fingers fall off whether or not Manning betrayed the US but it seems pretty obvious he betrayed those who simply want to serve the nation they love without fear of retaliation for who they are off-duty.

I would decry a general homophobic attack but Manning has been a little too self-serving in this regard to merit much sympathy; certainly nothing worthy of pitchforks and torches over a publisher that makes it a point to offend as many people as possible on any given day.

I also predict as soon as MAD publishes their next article skewering Christians and/or Republicans they will quickly find themselves returned to the good graces of those who demand we hate them for all time henceforth. Then we will see that it isn't really MAD Magazine that has supposedly betrayed progressive principles.

If people are so emotionally desperate to be upset about something they should go slam their fingers in the car door. Same result without as much noise on the internet.

But you're convinced and I'm tired of debating it today.

Feel as you must and I'll do the same.

Pathetic attempt at trying to justify your prejuidices...just wow.

Gays were denied the right to serve because they were considered security risks. That is a historical fact. Calling out the self-serving cynical ploy of "I couldn't help myself because..." when it harms good people genuinely trying to break down barriers is not prejudiced; it's the exact opposite. I am not beholden to unthinking hero worship just because Manning stuck his thumb in Bush's eye. Credit and blame should be applied where they are due even if they must fall on the same person.

I support Manning, but this is par for the course for that publication.

Might as well get offended at the nonsense in the tabloids.

-

but good catch, ya never know whatever subversive tactics they'll use, like trying to destroying Superman... uh, forget that.

Good catch!

d

-

-

I think that's the point. It's as ridiculous as the charges.

Just my opinion,

d

-

It's no surprise to me that a popular magazine would make fun of him.

After they've worked so hard to build it up, too. Shame.

as a debate-worthy publication.

I always preferred Cracked anyway.

Just Sayin'

And taking THAT side is even less smart.

and has been there ever since.

some times jokes don't go over as well you think they do.