So I’m reading American Spectator (courtesy of a link on Wonkette to the AS “worst book of the year” award, given to Jon Stewart’s America).
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7720
And I’m looking at the logo, and trying to figure out what it is. I eventually did (at least I think I did). But my first thought was"
“Is that a cockroach? What the hell? I mean, I admire their courage, but still.”
I think it’s supposed to be a wild turkey, which is better, although not much.
It’s some manner of turkey, methinks.
Reading their award citation, I’m left at a loss, as they don’t seem to say anything bad about the book, and a good portion of the article is simply quoting funny passages from it. Why, I’d almost suspect they put Jon Stewart on the cover in order to ride on his coat tails. All they left out was the justification for the “article” they wrote.
I agree–I totally didn’t get the blurb. If they’re going to put the guy on the cover, they at least could have gone into some detail about why they didn’t like the book.
I couldn’t really tell if they were being facetious when they quoted the “incomparable laughquakes” from the book–the lines they quote are actually pretty damn funny (IMO).
Is it possible that they just 100% didn’t get it?
Maybe they’d be better off with a logo like like this.
That is fucking hilarious. 
That’s just great.
The Spectator logo looks like a pheasant.
The suggested substitute logo is too bizarre for words.
They got the title wrong, just like the Crossfire guys did. It’s:
America (the Book)
A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction.
Leave out “Democracy” or “Inaction” and the joke is lost.
Holy fucking cow!
I don’t see that at all in that pic.
Looks like a turkey to me. Wasn’t that the bird that Ben Franklin wanted as a National Bird? As far as the National Bird goes, is there any truth that the Game Cock narrowly lost to the American Bald Eagle when the National Bird was decided on?
The big version is pretty clear. I didn’t really look at the logo until I got to the bottom of the page, though. And the small version, if you don’t know that it’s a squiggly line art bird of some sort, kinda looks like a squiggly line art cock-a-roach.
I may have been predisposed to think of scuttling nasty little creatures after reading the article though.
That review reminds me of the columns written by The Onion’s founder. I forget that guy’s name, but surely it’s similar to R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr.?
Daniel
His name is T. Herman Zwiebel.
Odd logos you say? Well, here’s one of The Dodge Ram
Whoa. I’ll be seeing those taillights in a whole new light, so to speak.
Perhaps, but I think if you accused them of that they would just say–with regards to the review–you didn’t get it either because you’re one of the slack-jawed liberal vulgarians who’s taken over the culture since the 1960’s. It’s been awhile since I regularly read either R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. or The American Spectator but one thing you have to remember about Tyrell and his publication is that on cultural matters like music, literature, or the arts, they are unabashedly elitist. This, by the way, is not the “cultural elitism” that right-wing radio ranters accuse liberals of exhibiting. This is instead the old-school cultural elitism that was characteristic of conservatives before they decided to stick chaws of tobacco in their cheeks and praise the patriotic hymns of country music so they could ingratiate themselves with Joe NASCAR. An old school cultural elitist like Tyrell believes only “classical” music is worthwhile and is still upset about the “damage” jazz wreaked on the cultural landscape. (As for rock-and-roll or hip-hop, forget it.) They also especially decry the apparent “dumbing down” and “coarsening” of culture since the 60’s of which Tyrell likely believes Jon Stewart and his book are perfect examples. In his view, the quotes cited from the book, rather than being funny, illustrated how “idiotic” and “vulgar” the material was.
And that is a wild turkey in the logo.
