Reverend Benny & Mister Sid's At Your Service #35

We are mere weeks into a new presidency--one markedly different from its predecessor by its transparency if nothing else.

While President Bush received and deserved to receive criticism, the Right's criticism of Mr. Obama (who expects and respects criticism) crosses the border into theater.

Maybe all along the Right is satirizing their own extreme incoherence. The thought bears some attention. Maybe the Right intends to mean the opposite of what they appear to be saying and are puzzled by the Left who doesn't get the joke.

When Rush says he hopes Obama fails he may well mean that he has high hopes that Obama is successful. That makes sense because what culture in it's right mind would pay a misanthrope (such as Rush appears to be) millions of dollars for wishing disaster on the nation unless he really meant the exact opposite. The sponsors of such radio programming would not be spending their money in their own best interests. Rush rather directly is wishing his sponsor's failure.

It's the amateurs that cloud the true intention here. Bloody amateurs that don't seem to get it. They blog. They troll the internet leaving little droppings of malcontent and hysteria.

The grandiose and small-minded certainly have their day posting on the 'Net. Nothing makes the curmudgeons happier than getting a one-off on some news site such as Salem-News.com or the Huffington Post or New York Times.

You have to love them for their effort, but folks--you don't have to listen to them.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark March 17, 2009 8:19 am (Pacific time)

Anon: Standard ethical procedure for any public channel communication is for every one of participants to ID themselves, since knowing source and its motivations thus learned is key to understanding ANY message. That was origination of the standard "written by..." format we know as by-line, for solid reasons centuries-old. You defy, deny, abuse that ethical practice, thus making impossible any practical professional answer. That's one huge shortcoming of this Internet format, open to easy-fix simply by full-ID on request. To WHOM should we address any response ? To "Anon" -surely ambivalent as any sure target, and may even reach wrong one(s) disastrously !!-- surely makes no sense here on in any other channel. As with any other social interaction, if one wishes to enjoy the privilege of any credibility and acceptance, then one fits self to obvious structure/shape of the channel in use. You might check out any famed business ethics OR management book; try Drucker (nearly any volume of many). If you need ref. to ethics, my shelf here has around ten, three treating precisely of communications pattern WHO says WHAT to WHOM for WHAT PURPOSE --and with working suggestion to simply ignore ANY originating anonymously, for reasons summarized above. Do I need to repeat, AGAIN, what my four friends from VA, otherwise non-IDd, stressed at IU propaganda analysis set ? Again, they had reason to be so treated. What's yours ?? IF NONE, then you can easily and comfortably fill in that WHOM as most ethical persons do when requested, here or anywhere else... If NOT, you automatically call into question your motive and thus shape proper response to your manipulative attempt. It appears to have been a smear attempt politically motivated, with no part your own but simply relaying what is easily determined as one form of propaganda, out of place in critical review of this artful format by Glen.

Anonymous March 17, 2009 6:23 am (Pacific time)

Anon: I said, "The Trolls are terrorists." You're coming out, are you? Shall I have a bumper sticker printed for you which says, "I'm a Troll and I'm proud!"

Anonymous March 16, 2009 9:45 pm (Pacific time)

I think I at least deserve a chance to defend myself since the author of the strip is obviously speaking directly to me in his piece buddy. Then on top of that, he called me a terrorist.

Glen March 16, 2009 9:28 pm (Pacific time)

Anon: Equating Obama with Nazis is so far off the reality track that your post doesn't deserve a reply.

Henry Ruark March 16, 2009 6:32 pm (Pacific time)

Anon: My disgust with yours arose because you chose to abuse the privilege of rational, reasonable criticism of the art form done so well by Glen simply for obvious political pandering, since that is the entire impact and tone and spirit behind what you chose to insert on his clean, clear and artfully sincere strip. If that insensitivity was not recognized before, I hope this will further illuminate it for you and others. The format itself is well suited to political points, and the artful use of both image and language can carry with great impact. Yours denigrates, defies and, for me, abuses what the artform is plainly intended to accomplish, while subjecting viewers to only intense personal political feeling of your own creation. I note you did NOT offer any kind of composition in similar format as comparison or useful competition in the same very special creative language.

Henry Ruark March 16, 2009 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

Anon: You wrote: " It is intellectual cowardice (and textbook fascism) to instantly demonize and more importantly, dehumanize any opposition to current political policy." Yours represents personal view, but you supply no further evidence, and display psychological symptom of your own distrust in statement by refusing to endorse it with checkable name. At IU, special course taught by four gentlemen from Va., not otherwise known, on propaganda analysis was themed on knowing source, emphasized thaa anonymous always had reason...they had good reason. What's yours ??? If you will ID to Editor, will send refs. for basis of my analysis here.

Anonymous March 16, 2009 9:22 am (Pacific time)

I actually did read the comic and the link to the story I provided relates seamlessly with the topic. Maybe my point is somewhat in opposition to the points brought up in the strip, but it is on topic none the less. My response is intended to expand the reader's mind beyond the controlled right left paradigm and to make the reader aware of the true source of the policies the president is made to carry out. It is intellectual cowardice (and textbook fascism) to instantly demonize and more importantly, dehumanize any opposition to current political policy as trolls and as glen puts it, terrorists.

Glen March 15, 2009 11:51 am (Pacific time)

DJ: No poll suggests the American people are ready for a civil war.

Henry Ruark March 15, 2009 10:48 am (Pacific time)

DJ: Somewhat reluctantly, I admit, I have to admire and join in yours re polls. I also agree that we will see wit, wisdom and will of the American public pronounced vs President Obama sooner than later, due to extremely heavy unique pressures. That's as it should be --BUT we must, this time, take very extreme care not to allow the same neoconnery cabal that has already brought us to this new extreme situation to continue its horrendous distortion and perversion of realities for the same American people, long fooled (over 30 years !) by the same tactics now demonstrated in many comments here, obviously machined and manipulated by order. Glen, thanks for wise use of art format to mediate dialog.

Henry Ruark March 15, 2009 8:30 am (Pacific time)

Glen et al: Sorry to see Anon stoop so low as to inflict openly dirty political propaganda on S-N channel obviously intended for higher-purpose criticism of specialized art-form. But that's tenor of times, to which we can only say the action itself destroys any impact for thinking viewers. Of COURSE art-form itself should be political...that's open intent of cartoonist form ever since first originated. Perversion comes from open smear-attempt simply by use of political-link with absolutely no attempt to stay within the reasonable bounds of obvious personal review for artform itself. THAT, for me, is highly revealing of the level, kind and open obvious intent of the perpetrator...revealing the WIN by ANY MEANS ! motivation for horrendous abuse of S-N channel.

DJ March 15, 2009 7:27 am (Pacific time)

Glen the below 2/22/09 poll you mentioned is accurate, but as you know these polls change daily. Have you gone to real clear politics? They take all the different polls and provide an average. During the last couple of election cycles Rasmussen.com was right on the money on all of it's polls from local, state and national elections. President Jimmy Carter in march of 1988 had a 77% approval rating, and we know how that worked out. So polls can no doubt be misleading in terms of future elections, but people like to have these measurements on hand. I value those presidents who lead by principle, not polls. There have been just a handfull in my opinion who led that way, and actually Carter was one of them, it's just that America didn't buy his principles. No doubt we'll see how the voter assesses Obama's principles before too long.

Glen March 15, 2009 7:14 am (Pacific time)

The Anonymous post below is the perfect example of a Troll Dropping. Right-wingers troll the internet looking for blog-spots to poop steaming piles of their odiferous propaganda. Think of them as wild animals trying to mark their territory. The cartoon has nothing to do with Nazi's or Obama or Michael Savage. The cartoon, in fact, lampoons trolls like Anonymous. But Anonymous is too dim-witted to notice the fact. I would be surprised if Anonymous even read the comic.

Anonymous March 14, 2009 11:07 am (Pacific time)

Savage: “Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did”..Michael “Savage” Weiner, corporate media talk show host and former beatnik, has told his audience that Obama’s appointees are following the policies of the Nazis. Savage, a former Bush supporter and notorious carnival barker for the false right-left paradigm (and neocon Muslim-hater), does not bother to call out a single Obama appointee by name. Instead, in the audio clip here, Weiner concentrates on Obama’s “green shirts,” an allusion to Hitler’s SA brown shirts. featured-stories - Savage: Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did Michael “Savage” Weiner compares Obama and his appointees to Nazis on his radio show. Savage is correct about the fascistic character of Obama’s mass movement, but he has conveniently omitted an important part of the larger picture. Hitler was a creation of Wall Street financiers and the international bankers, a historical fact documented by British economist, historian, and writer Antony C. Sutton. Sutton documents the roles played by J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and other elitists in the rise of Hitler and Nazism....cont'd @ http://www.infowars.com/savage-obama-appointees-actually-have-almost-the-same-exact-policies-as-the-nazi-party-did/

Henry Ruark March 12, 2009 7:50 am (Pacific time)

Glen: Yours there, as usual, right on, too ! Seems to me I remember CW-phrase "War Against Secession"...in any case it is entirely clear they do NOT wish this nation well as now Constituted, and are seeking ways to sabotage Pres. O. no matter what he and we now do. I like your terminology: "treasonous suggestion" !!...surely one to be avoided in any honest, democratic channel devoted to republican principles. Note small-R !

Glen March 12, 2009 6:30 am (Pacific time)

Henry, it's interesting that the trolls didn't suggest secession. That's because no state or area is thoroughly opposed to Obama. His popularity rating is 67% (Gallup 2/22/09). The trolls color their treasonous suggestion of violence against the government by calling it civil war. The patina of romance still clings to civil war for the nut cases. The trolls are terrorists. See my comments in Tim's story (LA interview).

Henry Ruark March 11, 2009 7:17 pm (Pacific time)

Glen: OR perhaps we should consider your take on separatist revolt now threatening new Civil War ? Intriguing to see what you will do with that one; for real motivation, check out Comments under Tim's honest story re LA-int'v.

Henry Ruark March 11, 2009 1:18 pm (Pacific time)

Glen: Again, right on ! Now how about one on "groupthink" and its massive misleading impacts on our politics generally ??

[Return to Top]